The outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic has left the whole world on edge. While researchers, doctors and scientists are eyeing possible solutions or responses that mitigate the spread of the virus, the rest of the public is also battling the issue in one way or another. The world population has seen a break in their routines, having to adapt to different work dynamics than usual. Many people have seen their work tasks, their family and emotional ties and their recreational time transferred to the digital environment. In a context of significant presence and participation of people on the internet and the use of mobile devices, the circulation of content on social networks has also been impacted by the appearance of COVID19. 

What has been the role of the main platforms in these weeks? In general terms, it could be said that they have shown a strong presence and an active role in moderating the content circulating in them. There are those who even maintain that they are taking control of the information ecosystem like never before. Despite this, the main companies have sent their workers to work from their homes, leaving a greater flow of content in the hands of artificial intelligence tools and machine learning algorithm .

Let's look, for example, at some of the measures Facebook and Twitter took in times of a pandemic. In March, Facebook began advertising its "COVID-19 Information Center" (COVID-19 Information Center) inside its platform, located at the top of the news feed and that includes real-time updates of the measures taken by national authorities and global organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO). At Press releaseThe company also noted that they were "carefully monitoring user usage patterns", "making systems more efficient" and "adding capabilities as needed". However, in order to prioritize and provide reliable information, it is not entirely clear how they will act against those government measures that do not follow the recommendations of the WHO or the sources that they consider with authority or credit to issue on the subject. This would be the case, for example, of Nicaraguan government. 

As for the fake news, Facebook has actively worked to remove all content related to COVID19 that may "contribute to imminent physical harm." In this sense, other statement issued in the last days of March indicates that since January they have withdrawn posts that "they make false claims about cures, treatments, availability of essential services or the location and severity of the pandemic." An example of a publication that could be removed for this reason is one that states that physical distancing does not help prevent the spread of the virus. On the other hand, they also focused on working with fact checker to deal with what they identify and refer to as content that does not directly result in physical harm but can cause social upheaval, such as conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus.

Following this policy, a few days ago the company deleted a post by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, which sparked controversy and mixed opinions. In the video, the president stated that "hydroxychloroquine works everywhere", despite warnings from health authorities that the drug is still undergoing tests to determine its effectiveness. Facebook considered that this content, regardless of its emissary, violated the rules of the social network or Community Standards and therefore removed it.

In a similar sense, Twitter has issued public statements about the adaptation 

of their policies facing the outbreak of the pandemic. The company stated that they have expanded their definition of "harm", to be able to include content there that goes directly against the recommendations of global and local health authorities. Although Twitter has an extremely open position regarding content of public interest (that is, tweets they remain even if they violate the rules of the social network if they have value for the "health of public conversation"), he did not show such tolerance against the content published by Bolsonaro and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Both leaders made statements that were contrary to what was sustained by the WHO, so his or her tweets they were removed.

Faced with this scenario, some questions appear about the gaps that still persist around the policies of these platforms. A few days ago, Agustina Del Campo commented on this blog that there is a debate that precedes COVID19 about how companies define and qualify the discourse of public officials. The importance of this discussion is clear in the examples cited. 

But in addition, new questions open up: what content is being removed? Are there or will reports be generated that can show content moderation and its possible effects in times of pandemic? If, as announced by Facebook, your content moderators are working remotely and therefore the use of artificial intelligence has increased and machine learning algorithm all with flagging and remove content that violates network rules, to what extent is it possible define the legitimacy of the content? 

In this regard, there is an open debate that precedes the pandemic regarding the use and convenience of automation to solve content problems that require context analysis, local idioms, conjuncture, etc. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are currently voices (for example, Emma Llanso of the Center for Democracy and Technology) asking companies to generate a detailed analysis of how the mechanisms worked in the midst of forced automation when the crisis ends. Although some companies (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) clarified beforehand that much of the content was going to be disproportionately affected even despite their best efforts, it would be essential to know what type of content was more prone to errors or which voices were they were reduced or restricted by automation in this period. The answers to these questions will serve both for companies to objectively evaluate the performance of their algorithms and to systematize some of the data for which we currently only have anecdotal information. And they could, in turn, serve as an empirical foundation in the platform regulation proposal that has been discussed so much globally in the last 2 years.  

 

By Paula Roko

TW @paulaaroko