Understanding the (In)Effectiveness of Content Moderation: A Case Study of Facebook in the Context of the U.S. Capitol Riot
Authors:
Ian Goldstein,
Laura Edelson,
Minh-Kha Nguyen,
Oana Goga,
Damon McCoy,
Tobias Lauinger
Abstract:
Social media networks commonly employ content moderation as a tool to limit the spread of harmful content. However, the efficacy of this strategy in limiting the delivery of harmful content to users is not well understood. In this paper, we create a framework to quantify the efficacy of content moderation and use our metrics to analyze content removal on Facebook within the U.S. news ecosystem. In…
▽ More
Social media networks commonly employ content moderation as a tool to limit the spread of harmful content. However, the efficacy of this strategy in limiting the delivery of harmful content to users is not well understood. In this paper, we create a framework to quantify the efficacy of content moderation and use our metrics to analyze content removal on Facebook within the U.S. news ecosystem. In a data set of over 2M posts with 1.6B user engagements collected from 2,551 U.S. news sources before and during the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021, we identify 10,811 removed posts. We find that the active engagement life cycle of Facebook posts is very short, with 90% of all engagement occurring within the first 30 hours after posting. Thus, even relatively quick intervention allowed significant accrual of engagement before removal, and prevented only 21% of the predicted engagement potential during a baseline period before the U.S. Capitol attack. Nearly a week after the attack, Facebook began removing older content, but these removals occurred so late in these posts' engagement life cycles that they disrupted less than 1% of predicted future engagement, highlighting the limited impact of this intervention. Content moderation likely has limits in its ability to prevent engagement, especially in a crisis, and we recommend that other approaches such as slowing down the rate of content diffusion be investigated.
△ Less
Submitted 21 February, 2023; v1 submitted 6 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
An Analysis of United States Online Political Advertising Transparency
Authors:
Laura Edelson,
Shikhar Sakhuja,
Ratan Dey,
Damon McCoy
Abstract:
During the summer of 2018, Facebook, Google, and Twitter created policies and implemented transparent archives that include U.S. political advertisements which ran on their platforms. Through our analysis of over 1.3 million ads with political content, we show how different types of political advertisers are disseminating U.S. political messages using Facebook, Google, and Twitter's advertising pl…
▽ More
During the summer of 2018, Facebook, Google, and Twitter created policies and implemented transparent archives that include U.S. political advertisements which ran on their platforms. Through our analysis of over 1.3 million ads with political content, we show how different types of political advertisers are disseminating U.S. political messages using Facebook, Google, and Twitter's advertising platforms. We find that in total, ads with political content included in these archives have generated between 8.67 billion - 33.8 billion impressions and that sponsors have spent over $300 million USD on advertising with U.S. political content.
We are able to improve our understanding of political advertisers on these platforms. We have also discovered a significant amount of advertising by quasi for-profit media companies that appeared to exist for the sole purpose of creating deceptive online communities focused on spreading political messaging and not for directly generating profits. Advertising by such groups is a relatively recent phenomenon, and appears to be thriving on online platforms due to the lower regulatory requirements compared to traditional advertising platforms.
We have found through our attempts to collect and analyze this data that there are many limitations and weaknesses that enable intentional or accidental deception and bypassing of the current implementations of these transparency archives. We provide several suggestions for how these archives could be made more robust and useful. Overall, these efforts by Facebook, Google, and Twitter have improved political advertising transparency of honest and, in some cases, possibly dishonest advertisers on their platforms. We thank the people at these companies who have built these archives and continue to improve them.
△ Less
Submitted 12 February, 2019;
originally announced February 2019.
