3 tech design principles to help curb digital repression

(Credit: Unsplash)

This article is brought to you thanks to the collaboration of The European Sting with the World Economic Forum.

Author: Evîn Cheikosman, Project Coordinator, Data Policy, World Economic Forum & Emily Ratté, Project Coordinator, World Economic Forum & Marcus Burke, Research Analyst, Media, Entertainment and Sport, World Economic Forum

  • Activists and journalists are increasingly suppressed and silenced on social media platforms.
  • Content by users from marginalized populations is unfairly and disproportionately targeted for removal due to bias in algorithms and AI.
  • Three principles implemented in the tech design stage can reduce harm, end digital repression and hold certain actors and platforms accountable for censorship of documented injustices and human rights abuses.

Most of us do not have full visibility into the potential injustices, conflicts and oppression or violence that occur in any given country. We depend on citizen activists and journalists to be our eyes and ears.

Over this past year, however, we have seen an unparalleled level of censorship of individuals, indigenous communities and vulnerable populations on social media and other platforms. Activists and journalists on these platforms are increasingly suppressed and silenced to the extent of near invisibility.

At the same time, perpetrators of injustices roam unpunished, rewarded with clicks and likes.

Compounding this is the reality that digital communication platforms run on algorithms programmed to maximize engagement, which tend to promote attention-grabbing inflammatory content. Platforms also utilize artificial intelligence to remove anything that violates the terms and conditions of community guidelines (such as hate speech) and ban inappropriate accounts. However, these processes can disproportionately impact marginalized communities, which find their accounts and content – especially political speech, conflict documentation and dissent – unfairly targeted for removal. Further, since the start of the pandemic, we have seen a proliferation of social bots liking, sharing and commenting on posts, which can generate online hate as well as amplify existing hate speech and disinformation by facilitating its spread and emboldening individuals with extremist viewpoints.

To understand the scale of this problem, we need to know how effective platforms are at removing harmful content, as well as removing content assumed to be harmful but in actuality is not. Facebook and Instagram provide someinformation on removed content they later restored, but we still have very little visibility into what percentage of content was removed by mistake. Furthermore, as of now, there exists no shared language on what constitutes “terrorism” or “organized hate”, the categories automated flagging systems use to validate removal of content.

According to Google’s January 2021-June 2021 transparency report, 9,569,641 videos were removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines. Of videos flagged, 95% were removed through automated flagging, of which 27.8% were removed before gaining any views. Facebook’s January 2021-March 2021 Community Standards Enforcement Report shows Facebook removed 9 million pieces of content deemed content actioned by Dangerous Organizations: Terrorism and Organized Hate and 25.2 million pieces of content deemed hate speech. Instagram removed 429,000 pieces of terrorist content and 6.3 million pieces of hate speech content.

Google transparency report - videos removed by source of first detection
According to Google’s transparency report, 95% of videos were removed by automated flagging. Image: Google

The dilemma in these numbers is that this alsoincludes content shared by activists and journalists removed on the false pretense of terrorism or hate speech.

We have seen how these issues can cause tangible physical, emotional and political harm to individuals, such as in the case of anti-Muslim hate speech and disinformation on Facebook and WhatsApp, which contributed to genocide in Myanmar. Ambiguity in platforms’ community guidelines and the lack of shared definitions pave the way for bias in automated flagging systems, digital repression by government authorities and censorship of activists instead of the true perpetrators.

Marginalized Communities: Targets of Content Removal

Indisputably, digital communication platforms amplify social justice causes, particularly racial injustice. Among top hashtags used on Instagram related to racial injustice, #blacklivesmatter and #endpolicebrutality have helped to educate and create calls to action against state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. While social media giants have expressed solidarity with anti-racist movements, their algorithms have a track record of disproportionately removing content raising awareness of these issues. Whether it’s artificial intelligence incorrectly flagging content or moderators’ inability to manage the sheer volume of inflammatory language, banning such content results in silencing historically marginalized voices.

Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, many Black activists reported being censored on social media for spelling out racist policies and shining a light on historical injustices. According to a study by the University of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University and the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, tweets written in African American English were two times as likely to be marked as “hate speech”. More recently, during the outbreak of violence between Israel and Palestine in May 2021, Twitter and Facebook either improperly blocked or restricted millions of pro-Palestinian posts incorrectly associated with terrorism.

While improvements to algorithms have been made, platforms are still struggling with differentiating between online terror and those communicating candid, real-life experiences of discrimination, with the algorithms often reflecting the inequalities that underpin bias in society.

Case Study: Palestinian Activism

During the May 2021 airstrikes in Gaza, Palestinians and supporters around the world leveraged social media to quickly disseminate key information, share experiences and crowdsource relief. However, many accounts were suspended, with posts flagged as inappropriate, live videos blocked and content reaching fewer eyes than normal. In the first two weeks of the conflict, over 500 instances of content removal were reported to 7amleh, a nonprofit focused on social media. Platforms blamed technical glitches, but advocates have scrutinized the ways in which posts and hashtags of the Al-Aqsa mosque, the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem and other non-violent subjects were targeted for removal – making invisible the experiences of many Arabs in the larger social media ecosystem. Further exacerbating the frustrations of many Palestinians, Israeli ads suggesting violence remained on YouTube for days before being flagged for removal. https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1395688400020250626&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weforum.org%2Fagenda%2F2021%2F07%2Fthree-tech-design-principles-can-help-curb-digital-repression-algorithm-ai-bias-online-harm-data-policy%2F&sessionId=d817008f8340e62e93b1f550a866da9ebe6381d7&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

Although companies have created task forces and dedicated resources to addressing these issues, the situation in May was reflective of a broader pattern.

Case Study: Colombian Activism

Generally, there is this problem with moments of social sparks and protests in Latin American countries wherein we see more online censorship of crucial content documenting violence, raising awareness of human rights violations, and bringing evidence of the repression and abuses that happen on the streets.—Veridiana Alimonti, Latin American Sr. Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Since 28 April 2021, thousands of people demonstrating against increasing inequality, poverty and state violence in Colombia have been met with police crackdowns. Efforts to stymie dissent in the physical world have translated to the online world, wherein content regarding the protests has been met with internet disruptions and removals.

Colombian authorities started a campaign called #Colombiaesmiverdad (“Colombia is my truth”) to frame anti-government voices as terrorists and vandals – not only in the physical world, but also online. This in effect prompted Instagram’s algorithm to flag and remove content considered “terrorism” or “hate speech” regardless of whether or not the content honestly depicted injustices, crimes and violence.

During this same time frame, Instagram Commons admitted to the removal issues, but many activists and organizations reported that their content was still being removed. According to Carolina Botero Cabrera, Executive Director of Karisma Foundation, the Colombian civil society digital rights organization, “We have over 1,000 reports of censorship, around 90 percent of it was by Instagram and the content was overwhelmingly about the protests”. https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X2VtYmVkX2NsaWNrYWJpbGl0eV8xMjEwMiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250cm9sIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1390818110664593409&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weforum.org%2Fagenda%2F2021%2F07%2Fthree-tech-design-principles-can-help-curb-digital-repression-algorithm-ai-bias-online-harm-data-policy%2F&sessionId=d817008f8340e62e93b1f550a866da9ebe6381d7&theme=light&widgetsVersion=82e1070%3A1619632193066&width=550px

Automated content moderation systems pose a significant threat to freedom of expression, with a disproportionate impact on marginalized and vulnerable communities, activists and journalists. Even with the lack of transparency into the error rates, it is clear that automated systems do not understand context and can be easily manipulated by authorities and disinformation bots. Unresolved, this problem will continue to have profound consequences on the ground, particularly during times of crisis and civil unrest.

3 Ethical Technology Design Principles

Three technology design principles can be implemented to:

  • Reduce online and emanating physical harms
  • Stop the digital repression of activists and journalists
  • Hold certain actors and digital communications platforms accountable for censorship of documented injustices and human rights abuses

Principle 1: Service provider responsibility

The burden of safety should never fall solely upon the end user. Service providers can take preventative steps to ensure that their services are less likely to facilitate or encourage illegal and inappropriate behaviors.

Principle 2: User empowerment and autonomy

Ensuring the dignity of users is of central importance, with users’ best interests a primary consideration, through features, functionality and an inclusive design approach that secures user empowerment and autonomy as part of the in-service experience.

Principle 3: Transparency and accountability

Transparency and accountability are hallmarks of a robust approach to safety. They not only provide assurances that services are operating according to their published safety objectives, but also assist in educating and empowering users about steps they can take to address safety concerns.

Based on the Safety by Design (SbD) principles from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner (eSafety), these principles were developed through extensive consultation with over 60 key stakeholder groups in recognition of the importance of proactively considering user safety during the development process, rather than retrofitting safety considerations after users have experienced online harm.

While digital injustices unfortunately exist in every society, organizations with a vested interest in developing, deploying and using ethical technology have a responsibility to make it difficult for people to perpetuate technology-enabled harms and abuses.

It is not enough to simply remove harmful content. Success rates for content removal mean very little if activists are completely censored online and marginalized offline, and if victims or survivors still have to deal with the social, reputational and psychological trauma caused by the digital abuser. We need transparency into the rate of error for mistaken content removals. We need the digital repression of vulnerable populations, activists and journalists to stop. And we need the perpetrators of digital injustices held to account.

Here is a non-comprehensive list of leaders, organizations and campaigns that advocate for digital justice and help victims, survivors and activists:

The World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Data Policy is leading a multistakeholder initiative aimed at exploring these issues, Pathways to Digital Justice, in collaboration with the Global Future Council on Media, Entertainment and Sport and the Global Future Council on AI for Humanity. To learn more, contact Evîn Cheikosman at evin.cheikosman@weforum.org.

the sting Milestones

Featured Stings

Can we feed everyone without unleashing disaster? Read on

These campaigners want to give a quarter of the UK back to nature

How to build a more resilient and inclusive global system

Stopping antimicrobial resistance would cost just USD 2 per person a year

The teaching of Palliative Care for future health professionals and its inclusion in Universal Coverage Health

COP21 Breaking News_12 December: 195 countries adopt the First Universal Climate Agreement

SPB TV @ MWC14: The TV of the Future

Shaping the Conference on the Future of Europe

Unemployment is down across the world’s largest economies

Khashoggi murder trials must public and meet international standards, UN expert urges

Afghanistan: EU reinforces humanitarian support with €40 million as crisis worsens

Several crises in one: what effects will COVID-19 have on the global risk landscape?

These countries are all building brand-new cities

Coronavirus is creating retirement insecurity. These 10 steps can diffuse the timebomb of an ageing population

Lessons from dealing with the collapse of Lehman Brothers

Even in the world’s richest countries, kids might not have what they need to learn at home

Challenges facing the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns

5 ways to boost sustainable trade in the world’s poorest countries

COVID-19 and indigenous peoples in Brazil: a neglected population and the importance of the vaccine

Syria’s Idlib ‘on the brink’ of a nightmare, humanitarian chiefs warn, launching global solidarity campaign

7 steps to make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks

Z, V or ‘Nike swoosh’ – what shape will the COVID-19 recession take?

How AI is shaping financial services

Deadly swine fever threatens Asia, UN agriculture agency warns, urging regional collaboration

Reading this alone? Recent surveys reveal the curious truth about loneliness

OECD survey reveals many people unhappy with public services and benefits

The ethical dilemmas of medicine

Girls still being treated as aliens in medicine in the 21st century

MEPs call for the protection of fundamental values in the EU and worldwide

6 women of history who shaped the world, from a Hawaiian queen to a Chinese empress

Asylum Seeker Accommodation and Mental Health

Around 600,000 Afghan children face death through malnutrition without emergency funds: UNICEF

10 expert predictions for the next decade in Chinese AI

Developed and developing financial markets are more similar than you think. Here’s why

Von der Leyen on Europe Day: What does Europe mean to me and why is solidarity more valid than ever

The EU prepares for the end of LIBOR: the Commission welcomes the agreement reached between the European Parliament and the Council on financial benchmarks

Multilateralism must weather ‘challenges of today and tomorrow’ Guterres tells Paris Peace Forum

China-EU Trade and Economic Relations in Numbers

Parliament boosts consumer rights online and offline

If this is Globalization 4.0, what were the other three?

Towards a stronger and more resilient Schengen area

Dreaming of China

Germany and Europe prepare for Trump’s America

As Alan Turing makes the £50 note, how do countries design their currencies?

Is continuous sanctioning the way to resolve the Ukrainian crisis?

EU Summit/Migration: Parliament calls for joint solutions based on solidarity

FROM THE FIELD: Free tutorials in Mali, ‘a life-saver’ for Fatouma

Why forensic science is in crisis and how we can fix it

Commission’s feeble response to financial benchmarks fraud

How the US should react to the pandemic, according to Bill Gates

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights marks its 10th anniversary

Here are three ways Africa’s youth are defeating corruption


A Sting Exclusive: “Education in Europe, fostering skills development inside and outside the school system”

EU budget: the Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2020

Europe divided: 30 years on from the fall of the Berlin Wall

What the future holds for the EU – China relations?

UN launches new fund to advance sustainable development in Aral Sea region

COP21 Breaking News_09 December: List of Recent Climate Funding Announcements

Human rights defenders, too often left defenceless themselves – UN expert

Health worker´s empathy and their power to change the world

Eurozone: Inflation plunge to 0.4% in July may trigger cataclysmic developments

UN spotlights digitization of audiovisual archives to preserve human history on World Day

State aid: Commission approves €1.1 billion Polish scheme to further support companies affected by coronavirus outbreak

The feminisation of medicine and persistence of stereotypes

More Stings?

Speak your Mind Here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: