Algorithms: the Virtual Time’s “Big Brother”

Social Media Platforms and the Strategy of Gagging

By: Prof. Monzer Ali Ahmad

Author and academic researcher.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, decides to share a personal moment with the world – he’s going to the restroom. Can he? He can, in theory, broadcast this mundane event to approximately 2.895 billion active Facebook users.

In the same way and mechanism, he is able to prevent the muzzle the cries and calls of an annihilated people, he is able to block millions of messages and comments that advocate, support, or talk about the extermination, siege, and starvation of an entire people, as is currently happening with the Palestinian people in Gaza, while making available what suits him and the policy and interests of his company.

There is no doubt that all users of the Facebook and Instagram platforms, which belong to Meta company, simply realize what the management of those platforms is doing, through imposing censorship and restricting access, in addition to the intended control over the publications supporting the Palestinian cause, and alsothe topics related to it. While these procedures do not apply to the terrorist operations carried out by the Israeli occupation forces, the matter which highlights the long-standing concerns about the unfair policy while the war is raging in Gaza. Meta’s neutrality was and still questionable, and subject to human rights criticism. Such criticisms have increased since the Meta, more than three years ago, appointed the former Israeli Justice Deputy Minister and lawyer Amy Palmor to its Content Oversight Board. Palmor is one of the first twenty members of Facebook’s Oversight Board. Her appointment sparked controversy over the objectivity of the Board, and also on Facebook’s objectivity and biasness, as Palmor assumed a government, military, and intelligence positions in the past. She is the first person with such background to be appointed to the Board.

The current issue of stories that disappear after 24 hours has sparked anger among users of the two platforms, due to the Meta’s intentional censorship onposts supporting the Palestinian cause. Followers, publishers, and users of social media sites are, since the outbreak of the war in the Gaza Strip, complaining about the problem of stories not surfaced on Facebook. It is known that this feature, launched by the FB, allows you to share your dearest memories—-  whether you spend a lot of time organizing an artistic work, collecting pictures, or posting other political and military topics,wishing to publish them, but the kick in  the teeth is that you will be surprised that your story is suspended, or that some of your friends’ stories do not appear to you, and so we get less access to content and thus we get much fewer views.

Also, searching for some active figures became impossible, such figures became unable to interact with others’ posts, not to mention the issue of banning and restricting accounts, and preventing publication. Support operations, that some people request by comments, posts,and likes are no longer effective, beneficial, or provide any support.

Facebook instructions remind users to abide by its rules, and not use prohibited words in posts or comments, so as not to be banned or restricted. Users are also advised to adhere to the principles of respect, tolerance, and cooperation on social media, in order to achieve a safe and suitable environment for everyone. However, there is no doubt that these rules do not apply to everyone, as Facebook bans (as it claims) the terms and phrases related to hatred, racism, discrimination between races and nationalities, incitement to violence and terrorism, and reference to fraud, deception, trickery,also prohibited materials such as drugs, weapons, and pornography, in addition to inappropriate language and insults. Facebook executives claim that they update the list of banned words permanently, expanding it to include more phrases and terms that pose a threat to public safety and security.

It seems that the algorithms used by the management of Meta Company have been developed significantly during the past period, especially after using artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to detect banned words and automatically erase them, in addition to that, the content published on Facebook is audited by the network’s content control team. It seems that the content control team, and the mentality that governs its management, are the main responsible for allowing orbanning the content they find and classify as conflicting with the standards of the virtual community they control. It seems that the issue of maintaining confidentiality in justifying the deliberate restriction of content, under the pretext that this falls within the list of “technical errors” is deliberate. This should be clarified: whether it is caused by the human factor to these tools, or whether it is derived from the level of automation? Or is the reason a problem in the training set? Simply, there is no clarity in that, there is, nevertheless, a deliberate ambiguity

The current algorithms are capable of imposing a total ban and restriction on the content related to the ongoing conflict in Palestine. It seems that this ban is unfair, rather biased in favor of the Zionist enemy and his ideas. It can be described as extremist as it tends to completely delete any defense or support for the favor of the Palestinian cause. There is no doubt that thesealgorithms make a list of words, phrases, images, maps, videos, and links among the list of prohibitions that must be restricted (and dealt with in strict treatment in some cases) if related to the Zionist entity, especially when it comes to the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, Palestine, Jerusalem, and other topics related to Resistance. Some words (which we consider normal in the Arab region,while we should not use other words other than them) are still sensitive to the management of Facebook and Instagram platforms, the matter which prompted activists in the Arab region to invent methods to circumvent the algorithms and avoid their automatic control, by changing the letters of the word, stretching or cutting words, or using symbols and English letters, in order to avoid the total ban of content, or reduce the level of access, or affect the reach of the content related to the conflict, with the aim of deceiving the algorithm and circumventing it “legitimately”.

This is not the first time that Facebook – like it like the international community – has violated the rights of the Palestinians. An independent analysis commissioned by Meta itself that was conducted by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) concluded that the social networks violated the human rights of the Palestinians by imposing censorship on content related to the Israeli attacks on Gaza after the events of May 2021.

The report found that Meta imposed stricter rules when dealing with Arabic-language content, comparing this procedure to the content in Hebrew during the same period of time. Anyhow, the report said that this bias was “unintentional” attributing it to Arabic language algorithms.

The analysis saw that Facebook and its parent company (Meta) violated the rights of Palestinian users in exercising their freedoms of expression, assembly and political participation during the war on Gaza Strip, and the report confirmed that Meta implemented discriminatory and unequal policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Among the violations mentioned in the report, for example, is Instagram’s platform, owned by Meta, banning the hashtag #Aqsa at the beginning of the outbreak of the Gaza war last May. Meta later apologized, explaining that its algorithms replaced Al-Aqsa Mosque with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades group affiliated with the Fatah movement.

In addition to practicing shadow banning and explicit censorship, Meta has been criticized during the current period, after a number of users of communication platforms documented a glitch in translating the word “Palestinian” followed by the Arabic phrase “Alhamdulillah” into “Palestinian terrorists” in multiple profiles. A former Facebook employee, who has access to discussions between current Meta employees, said the problem “pushed a lot of people to the brink” domestically and externally.

Social Media Platforms Deny Practicing Shadowban

Somewhere between the platforms’ denial of practicing shadowban, while experts and users confirming that such ban is actually applied, Nora Benavidez, a senior advisor at Free Press, a digital civil rights group for media monitoring, says that concerns about censorship and shadow banning are always present on social media. However, the risks are much higher in times of war, making the realistic implications of these vague corporate policies more dangerous.

Shadowban occurs when a user’s posts are muted or blocked on a social platform (or forum) without receiving any formal notification. More precisely: it is to prevent or obstruct the access of a user’s content to followers on social networking sites, so that the ban will not be easily visible to the user. For example, blocked comments subject to shadowban rules—— posted on a blog or social media site will not be visible to other people accessing that site, meaning they will be as if they do not exist, and some consider these practices as gagging through the compulsory measures but with no violence or rudeness. You’ll notice that your posts, comments, and activities have suddenly disappeared or been obscured, and may not appear in searches. It is even possible that you will notice a strange drop in engagement on your page that is caused by the fact that not everyone, including your followers, can see your content on the Feeds page. Isn’t that like making a “delicate” enforced hiding of your account without having to ban you?!

Having said that, we can say that the theory of the “Silence Vortex” by German political scientist Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann has resurfaced and become a reality. However, this is happening in the context of new technology, far removed from traditional practices. Despite many researchers and enthusiasts talking about significant modifications to this theory, especially after the emergence of blogs and the widespread use of social media, it was believed that imposing the “Silence Vortex” theory was no longer possible. The issue of censorship and blocking was considered a thing of the past and far history. However, experience, particularly during conflicts, has shown that censorship and suppression continue but with new tools and methods. These may appear more subtle and refined but are equally harsh. They no longer only affect journalists and modest media outlets; they now encompass entire communities and citizens, silencing their voices”.

The eyes of the public, who follow events in occupied territories on social media, remain vigilant and prepared to observe the opinions of journalists and analysts expressed through these platforms. These opinions hold a reference value in terms of their impact on public opinion. The power of influence wielded by some influencers and public opinion leaders, and their ability to create confusion among the masses regarding contentious issues, is one of the main reasons why these platforms resort to policies of banning and censorship, regardless of the ethical values and professional standards they claim to uphold in this virtual community. These policies are enforced when their interests demand it.