Commercial Content Moderation: Digital Laborers' Dirty Work

New Media & Society, 2022

Much scholarship across the humanities and social sciences seek to shed light on the intersection of far-right politics and social media platforms. Yet, scholars tend to focus on racist actors and the ideological underpinnings of platform policies while the contingencies that shape the experiences of content reviewers who make decisions about racist content remain underexamined. This article fills this gap by exploring such contingencies from a linguistic anthropological perspective. Drawing on Facebook moderators' stories, I illustrate the factors adjacent to, and beyond, ideology that animate the adjudication of racist hate speech.

Social Anthropology, 2021

Digital labour scholars have produced insightful analyses of the unpaid, creative, affective labour performed by users on social media platforms. Meanwhile, an increasing number of scholars have been studying the hidden labour of content moderators: underpaid, contingent workers who enable the sanitised online spaces that users take for granted by removing disturbing content. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork with third-party Facebook content moderators in the USA and Ireland, I argue that the case of content moderation affords us a new way of putting these approaches into conversation with one another. Specifically, I illustrate how content moderators perform affective labour-for themselves and for the platform-in ways that make possible the monetisation of users' cultural activities. In doing so, I draw attention to the human costs of maintaining user 'safety' and thus the profitability of large social media platforms.

Equidem, 2025

‘Scroll. Click. Suffer.’ is an in-depth investigation into the hidden workforce behind AI and social media—data labellers and content moderators. Based on interviews with 113 workers across Colombia, Kenya, and the Philippines, the report exposes the extreme occupational, psychological, sexual, and economic harms faced by those moderating violent content and training AI models for platforms like Meta, TikTok, and ChatGPT. From PTSD and substance dependency to union-busting and exploitative contracts, it reveals an industry architecture that normalises harm and conceals abuse. Tech giants outsource risk down opaque, informal supply chains, while workers are silenced by NDAs, punished for speaking out, and denied basic protections. Grounded in worker testimonies and legal analysis, the report outlines a clear roadmap for reform—and calls on lead firms, investors, governments, and the ILO to centre the rights of digital workers.

Information & Culture, 2020

AJIL Unbound

In a global context where political campaigning, social movements, and public discourse increasingly take place online, questions regarding the regulation of speech by social media platforms become ever more relevant. Companies like Facebook moderate content posted by users on their platforms through a mixture of automated decision making and human moderators. In this content moderation process, human rights play an ambiguous role: those who struggle with marginalization may find a space for expression and empowerment, or face exacerbation of pre-existing bias. Focusing on the role of human rights in Meta's content management, this essay explores how the protection of speech on social media platforms disadvantages the cultural, social, and economic rights of marginalized communities. This is not to say that speech on social media platforms is devoid of emancipatory potential, but that this potential is not uniformly or equally accessible. We see the incorporation of human rights...

Filosofija. Sociologija, 2024

Digitalisation and platformisation are continuously impacting and reshaping the societies we live in. In this context, we are witnessing the rise of phenomena such as fake news, hate speech, and the sharing of any other illegal content through social media. In this paper, I propose some ethical reflections on content moderation in the context of digital (social) media, as this topic seems – to me – to already incorporate other relevant digital issues in it, such as algorithms bias, the spread of fake news, and the potential misuses of artificial intelligence. In the first section, I will provide a few hermeneutic reflections over a speech given by the Italian scholar Umberto Eco, which appears to underline the necessity of a content moderation in an era of digital (social) media. In the second section, I will analyse, through a consequentialist perspective, critical and ethical issues posed by content moderation. In particular, I suggest the idea of a ‘moderate’ (reasonable and limited) content moderation that can only be assured by humans, as they are able to contextualise the content, to take emotions and subjective elements into account, to apply critical thinking and adaptability in complex circumstances.

The World Humanities Report, Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes (CHCI), 2024

Media, Culture & Society, 2022

While champions of the “new” creative economy consistently hype the career possibilities furnished by YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and the like, critics have cast a spotlight on the less auspicious elements of platform-dependent creative labor: exploitation, insecurity, and a culture of overwork. Social media creators are, moreover, beholden to the vagaries of platforms’ “inscrutable” socio-technical systems, particularly the algorithms that enable (or – conversely – thwart) their visibility. This article draws upon in-depth interviews with 30 social media creators – sampled from historically marginalized identities and/or stigmatized content genres – to explore their perceptions of, and experiences with, algorithmic (in)visibility. Together, their accounts evince a shared understanding that platforms enact governance unevenly – be it through formal (human and/or automated content moderation) or informal (shadowbans, biased algorithmic boosts) means. Creators’ understandings are implicated in experiential practices ranging from self-censorship to concerted efforts to circumvent algorithmic intervention. In closing, we consider how the regimes of discipline and punishment that structure the social media economy systematically disadvantage marginalized creators and cultural expressions deemed non-normative.

Internet Policy Review , 2019

The March 2017 advertiser revolt on YouTube, popularly known as the adpocalypse, introduced widespread and radical changes on the platform's policies related to the moderation of content, their 'monetisability' and the terms of the relationship between creators and the platform. These changes in turn have caused significant discontent within the creator community while also gradually transforming the predominant nature of content on the platform. This essay analyses this controversy that is yet to be subjected to a scholarly investigation, in order to probe the ways in which algorithmic moderation of content affects their monetisability and consequently the viewership patterns of culture. Through closely studying the new regime of content moderation and analysing user testimonies in the aftermath of the 'Adpocalypse', this essay poses critical questions about the public utility like role of digital platforms whose gatekeeping function remains largely outside the purview of public debate and deliberation.

Social Media + Society

As the logic of data-driven metrification reconfigures various realms of social and economic life, cultural workers—from journalists and musicians to photographers and social media content creators—are pursuing online visibility in earnest. Despite workers’ patterned deployment of search engine optimization, reciprocal linking, and automated engagement-boosting, tech companies routinely denigrate such practices as gaming the system. This article critically probes discourses and practices of so-called system-gaming by analyzing three key moments when platforms accused cultural producers of algorithmic manipulation. Empirically, we draw upon textual analyses of news articles ( n = 105) and user guidelines published by Google, Facebook, and Instagram. Our findings suggest that the line between what platforms deem illegitimate algorithmic manipulation and legitimate strategy is nebulous and largely reflective of their material interests. However, the language used to invoke this distinc...