Platform secrecy frames curated content as naturally occurring rather than selected.
Evidence
But why must it be so hidden? As Sarah Roberts argues, platform managers want to keep the content moderation process opaque not only to avoid helping users skirt the rules but to downplay the fact that what is available is the result of an active selection process, chosen for economic reasons. When moderation is made as invisible as possible, the content we do see seems like it is simply there, a natural phenomenon—including whatever racist, homophobic, obscene, or abusive content is allowed to stay. — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 370
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Free-speech platforms must advertise moderation while disavowing it — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 154; Platforms hide moderation by overwhelming users with what is available. — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 31; Invisible content filtering is more dangerous than content that is visibly withheld — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 552 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Journalism’s truth-falsehood distinction directly opposes platforms’ radical indifference to content
#complicates(0.75) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1610 - Invisible content filtering is more dangerous than content that is visibly withheld
#corroborates(0.72) — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 552 - Platform power rests on structural influence over data, not revenue size.
#expands(0.72) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 206