Suchergebnisse

A revealing and gripping investigation into how social media platforms police what we post online-and the large societal impact of these decisions Most users want their Twitter feed, Facebook page, and YouTube comments to be free of harassment and porn. Whether faced with "fake news" or livestreamed violence, "content moderators"-who censor or promote user-posted content-have never been more important. This is especially true when the tools that social media platforms use to curb trolling, ban hate speech, and censor pornography can also silence the speech you need to hear. In this revealing and nuanced exploration, award-winning sociologist and cultural observer Tarleton Gillespie provides an overview of current social media practices and explains the underlying rationales for how, when, and why these policies are enforced. In doing so, Gillespie highlights that content moderation receives too little public scrutiny even as it is shapes social norms and creates consequences for public discourse, cultural production, and the fabric of society. Based on interviews with content moderators, creators, and consumers, this accessible, timely book is a must-read for anyone who's ever clicked "like" or "retweet."

"Most users want their Twitter feed, Facebook page, and YouTube comments to be free of harassment and porn. Whether faced with 'fake news' or livestreamed violence, 'content moderators'--who censor or promote user-posted content--have never been more important. This is especially true when the tools that social media platforms use to curb trolling, ban hate speech, and censor pornography can also silence the speech you need to hear. [The author] provides an overview of current social media practices and explains the underlying rationales for how, when, and why these policies are enforced. In doing so, [the author] highlights that content moderation receives too little public scrutiny even as it is shapes social norms and creates consequences for public discourse, cultural production, and the fabric of society. Based on interviews with content moderators, creators, and consumers, this ... book is ... for anyone who's ever clicked 'like' or 'retweet.'"--

Proponents of generative AI tools claim they will supplement, even replace, the work of cultural production. This raises questions about the politics of visibility: what kinds of stories do these tools tend to generate, and what do they generally not? Do these tools match the kind of diversity of representation that marginalized populations and non-normative communities have fought to secure in publishing and broadcast media? I tested three widely available generative AI tools with prompts designed to reveal these normative assumptions; I prompted the tools multiple times with each, to track the diversity of the outputs to the same query. I demonstrate that, as currently designed and trained, generative AI tools tend to reproduce normative identities and narratives, rarely representing less common arrangements and perspectives. When they do generate variety, it is often narrow, maintaining deeper normative assumptions in what remains absent.

Recent social science concerning the information technology industries has been driven by a sense of urgency around the problems social media platforms face. But it need not be our job to solve the problems these industries have created, at least not on the terms in which they offer them. When researchers are enlisted in solving the industry's problems, we tend to repeat some of the missteps common to the study of technology and society.

Online content providers such as YouTube are carefully positioning themselves to users, clients, advertisers and policymakers, making strategic claims for what they do and do not do, and how their place in the information landscape should be understood. One term in particular, 'platform', reveals the contours of this discursive work. The term has been deployed in both their populist appeals and their marketing pitches, sometimes as technical 'platforms', sometimes as 'platforms' from which to speak, sometimes as 'platforms' of opportunity. Whatever tensions exist in serving all of these constituencies are carefully elided. The term also fits their efforts to shape information policy, where they seek protection for facilitating user expression, yet also seek limited liability for what those users say. As these providers become the curators of public discourse, we must examine the roles they aim to play, and the terms by which they hope to be judged.

Recently, the major US music and movie companies have pursued a dramatic renovation in their approach to copyright enforcement. This shift, from the 'code' of law to the 'code' of software, looks to technologies themselves to regulate or make unavailable those uses of content traditionally handled through law. Critics worry about the 'compliance' rules built into such systems: design mandates for manufacturers indicating what users can and cannot do under particular conditions. But these are accompanied by a second set of limitations: 'robustness' rules. Robustness rules obligate manufacturers to build devices such that they prevent tinkering - not only must the technology regulate its users, it must be inscrutable to them. This article examines this aspect of technical copyright regulation, looking particularly at the Content Scramble System (CSS) encryption system for DVDs and the recent 'broadcast flag' proposed for digital television. In the name of preventing piracy, these arrangements threaten to undermine users' sense of agency with their own technologies.

The flag is now a common mechanism for reporting offensive content to an online platform, and is used widely across most popular social media sites. It serves both as a solution to the problem of curating massive collections of user-generated content and as a rhetorical justification for platform owners when they decide to remove content. Flags are becoming a ubiquitous mechanism of governance—yet their meaning is anything but straightforward. In practice, the interactions between users, flags, algorithms, content moderators, and platforms are complex and highly strategic. Significantly, flags are asked to bear a great deal of weight, arbitrating both the relationship between users and platforms, and the negotiation around contentious public issues. In this essay, we unpack the working of the flag, consider alternatives that give greater emphasis to public deliberation, and consider the implications for online public discourse of this now commonplace yet rarely studied sociotechnical mechanism.