Platform moderation evolves through public negotiation rather than fixed rule enforcement.
Evidence
This case should also remind that moderation is not static: it is not the assertion of a priori rules and the subsequent enforcement of them. In this case, the practice emerged before the rule, the rule came under scrutiny, and the rule was eventually changed under pressure. Platform moderation is an ongoing negotiation—often an internal one, among the policy team, but sometimes with politically active user communities and sometimes on the public stage. It is both an internalist concern—what should the platform’s rules be, how will they be enforced, what is a fair way to govern users?—and an externalist concern: how does what the platform allows or prohibits affect broader public knowledge and value? — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 516
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Rules draw lines through communities that then adjust around them. — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 421; Platform rules are retroactive tombstones marking past public controversies — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 218; Platforms are universal media governed by uniform policies over heterogeneous communities. — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 427 (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- New platform norms are negotiated publicly and then hard-coded into the software
#corroborates(0.92) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 238 - A critical algorithmic justice movement has forced platform policy changes
#exemplifies(0.72) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 440 - Free-speech platforms must advertise moderation while disavowing it
#qualifies(0.70) — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 154