Content Visibility Control and How Shadowbanning is Used for Political and Corporate Goals

One of social media's dark sides is shadowbanning, a subtle way of moderating content without the owner noticing. Since the account owner doesn't notice that their content has been banned, they continue posting to a fictional audience rather than looking for an alternative way of solving the problem. 

Some claim that politically polarized social media platforms use this tool for political and corporate control. In this article, we will examine this claim and see how these social media giants control political narratives.

History of Shadowbanning

While shadowbanning has become synonymous with social media, its origins can be traced back to the early 1970s, during the early days of online gaming. Since trolling in virtual text-based dungeons was common, moderators would turn trolls into toads, who were still part of the game but invisible to the other players.

The Bulletin Board System (BBS) led to the development of shadowbanning as we know it today. The system had software that worked in the same way as a large message board. Some users were given certain administrative powers, such as twit with privileges enabling them to flag trolls. The trolls would still follow the public discussion while their visibility was reduced in the group.

The term “shadowban” was coined in 2001 to refer to people who intentionally trolled others. Today, shadowbanning has become popular among social media platforms, where it is used to control the visibility of users posting content that violates their guidelines.

How Social Media Shadowbans Political and Corporate Issues

The most prominent example of shadowbanning content appeared in 2020, when social media platforms shadowbanned content that was seen to be against the WHO guidelines on COVID-19. Platforms such as YouTube altogether banned any COVID-19-related content that was seen to contravene the WHO.

The move came after the platform banned content wrongly linking COVID-19 to 5G. In addition to YouTube, eight other technology companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter, pledged to reduce the spread of violent extremist content, leading to questions about if censorship was good.

Is Social Media Censorship Good?

Some people have argued that there is a need for free speech on social media, as well as a need to control harmful content and speech. Those who argue for the moderation of extremist content say there is a need to create a safe space. They add that some people's voices are silenced when an online social media space is unregulated.

Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, recently announced that the company would stop its fact-checking programs in the United States. He explained that the company risked appearing politically biased due to too much censorship. He added that social media user trust had been eroded, so there was a need to return to free speech.

A Case for Social Media Shadowbanning Harmful Content

Those who argue for the need to shadowban extremist political and corporate content say that social media can incite people, fuel conflict, and threaten the safety of the people. A good social media environment should allow people to exchange divergent views even when disagreeing. When there is governance and accountability in the social media space, this can help build user trust, shape public discourse, and protect the dignity of the people involved.

According to some reports, when Elon Musk started a campaign to promote free speech on X, hate speech on the platform doubled. There was also a rise in the number of accounts held by extremist groups like ISIS. Therefore, shadowbanning proponents say censoring these activities isn't censorship but a way of protecting communities.

The Problem of Shadowbanning Politics on Social Media

While shadowbanning content that violates political and global issues is good, it also comes with one challenge: bias against the views held by the social media platform. For instance, during the height of COVID-19, some users were able to discover remedies that helped improve the symptoms of the condition. However, since the WHO didn't approve such remedies, the content was considered misinformation and shadowbanned.

In Conclusion

Social media platforms have been used to shape public opinions in matters such as politics and medicine. While this may be beneficial, it also has its limitations. Therefore, these platforms need to offer a balance between free speech and shadow banning political and corporate content to control people’s opinions. If your content has been shadowbanned, it's essential to consider other ways of growing your Instagram account fast.