Abstract
Global content moderation is usually characterized as an even-handed implementation of platform aggression. However, close scrutiny of Meta’s Oversight Board decisions during 2020-2025 indicates that a different reality prevails; regional disparities are entrenched and some communities hold greater visibility than others in shaping the digital rules around expression. This paper focuses on the rhetorical framing, geographic distributions, and contextual engagements within decisions of the Oversight Board to investigate tendencies for what could be referred to as “regional silencing”. Meta’s rhetoric around a global, rights-based paradigm of content regulation stands on shaky ground, because moderation decisions are usually made without cultural specificity, and traditionally marginalise voices from the Global South. In both total case loads and depth of interpretation. Through content coding and close reading, the paper highlights ethical and representational gaps in the governance of platforms, arguing that this unevenness is not just a procedural flaw but a structural characteristic of platform governance that reproduces global hierarchies. The paper then offers a series of recommendations that are informed by interdisciplinary research and civic engagement, with the goal of improving the legitimacy and inclusiveness of decisions made at the platform level. By critically interrogating how and whose voices are included in high-stakes digital governance, the paper adds to existing debates about algorithmic justice, transnational accountability, and the ethics of digital regulation in a world that is more connected than ever.
Presenters
Réka Brigitta SzaniszlóAssistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, International and Regional Studies Institute, University of Szeged, Hungary
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
DIGITAL GOVERNANCE, PLATFORM REGULATION, CONTENT MODERATION, GLOBAL INEQUALITY, REGIONAL SILENCING
