标签、影子禁令和社区抵制:Meta 在 Facebook 上压制而非删除 COVID 错误信息和阴谋论的策略是否减缓了传播速度?

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Amelia Johns, Francesco Bailo, Emily Booth, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu
{"title":"标签、影子禁令和社区抵制:Meta 在 Facebook 上压制而非删除 COVID 错误信息和阴谋论的策略是否减缓了传播速度?","authors":"Amelia Johns, Francesco Bailo, Emily Booth, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu","doi":"10.1177/1329878x241236984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we ask how effective Meta's content moderation strategy was on its flagship platform, Facebook, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyse the performance of 18 Australian right-wing/anti-vaccination pages, posts and commenting sections collected between January 2019 and July 2021, and use engagement metrics and time series analysis to analyse the data, mapping key policy announcements against page performance. We combine this with content analysis of comments parsed from two public pages that overperformed in the time period. The results show that Meta's content moderation systems were partially effective, with previously high-performing pages showing steady decline. Nonetheless, some pages not only slipped through the net but overperformed, proving this strategy to be piecemeal and inconsistent. The analysis identifies trends that content labelling and ‘shadow banning’ accounts was resisted by these communities, who employed tactics to stay engaged on Facebook, while migrating some conversations to less moderated platforms.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Labelling, shadow bans and community resistance: did meta's strategy to suppress rather than remove COVID misinformation and conspiracy theory on Facebook slow the spread?\",\"authors\":\"Amelia Johns, Francesco Bailo, Emily Booth, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1329878x241236984\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, we ask how effective Meta's content moderation strategy was on its flagship platform, Facebook, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyse the performance of 18 Australian right-wing/anti-vaccination pages, posts and commenting sections collected between January 2019 and July 2021, and use engagement metrics and time series analysis to analyse the data, mapping key policy announcements against page performance. We combine this with content analysis of comments parsed from two public pages that overperformed in the time period. The results show that Meta's content moderation systems were partially effective, with previously high-performing pages showing steady decline. Nonetheless, some pages not only slipped through the net but overperformed, proving this strategy to be piecemeal and inconsistent. The analysis identifies trends that content labelling and ‘shadow banning’ accounts was resisted by these communities, who employed tactics to stay engaged on Facebook, while migrating some conversations to less moderated platforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Media International Australia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Media International Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241236984\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241236984","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们将探讨在 COVID-19 大流行期间,Meta 的内容审核策略在其旗舰平台 Facebook 上的效果如何。我们分析了在 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 7 月期间收集的 18 个澳大利亚右翼/反疫苗接种页面、帖子和评论区的表现,并使用参与度指标和时间序列分析来分析数据,将关键政策公告与页面表现进行映射。我们将这一分析与对两个公共页面的评论内容分析结合起来,这两个公共页面在这一时期的表现过于突出。结果表明,Meta 的内容审核系统发挥了部分作用,之前表现优异的网页表现出稳步下滑的趋势。然而,一些网页不仅漏网,而且表现优异,这证明这一策略是零碎的、不连贯的。分析发现,这些社区抵制内容标签化和 "影子封禁 "账户的趋势,他们采用了一些策略来保持在 Facebook 上的参与度,同时将一些对话转移到审核较少的平台上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Labelling, shadow bans and community resistance: did meta's strategy to suppress rather than remove COVID misinformation and conspiracy theory on Facebook slow the spread?
In this paper, we ask how effective Meta's content moderation strategy was on its flagship platform, Facebook, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyse the performance of 18 Australian right-wing/anti-vaccination pages, posts and commenting sections collected between January 2019 and July 2021, and use engagement metrics and time series analysis to analyse the data, mapping key policy announcements against page performance. We combine this with content analysis of comments parsed from two public pages that overperformed in the time period. The results show that Meta's content moderation systems were partially effective, with previously high-performing pages showing steady decline. Nonetheless, some pages not only slipped through the net but overperformed, proving this strategy to be piecemeal and inconsistent. The analysis identifies trends that content labelling and ‘shadow banning’ accounts was resisted by these communities, who employed tactics to stay engaged on Facebook, while migrating some conversations to less moderated platforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信