Cases: between theory and practice

The testimonials gathered in our case studies section cases provide an overview of the labyrinths that creators sometimes have to go through to recover publications or avoid sanctions due to errors or abuses in the application of community standards.

Throughout Circuito we issue a warning: content moderation systems are not infallible. This is clear to the platforms and, above all, to the users, who are faced with the reality of a sanction from time to time. It can be the accumulation of a strike, the removal of a piece of content or even the suspension of an account. Many creators have been caught between the rules of the social network they use and the contradictory way in which they are sometimes applied.

In the spirit of going beyond theory, Circuito includes a section of cases to delve into the practical problems of content moderation. The way platforms evaluate their users' actions in light of the rules can be inconsistent. And beyond the challenges these companies face - the global scale of content, insufficient human reviewers or algorithm errors - the analysis of this material is, from the outset, a task full of gray areas.

The examples we share illustrate the complexity of this scenario: a tweet where someone denounces a threat against them that Twitter interpreted as abusive behavior by the complainant; a video where a child makes another child fall off a bicycle that Youtube sanctions for violating its child safety policy; a news item about a terrorist attack in the Middle East that triggers a sanction for being considered violent or graphic content. 

The questionable sanctions of the platforms - which turn into real dramas for creators - can also be the result of the abusive use of copyright rules and mechanisms. Many users look for loopholes to exploit the rules to their advantage. 

This is the case, among others, of a teacher who wakes up one morning and discovers that her video has been demonetized for using tunes that belong to the public domain; or another user who receives the same sanction despite the fact that the objected material was recorded by himself. 

Faced with these situations, and as explained throughout the Circuit, social media provide the possibility of requesting a review of the decision or formally advancing an appeal. However, communication problems may arise in the process. On the one hand, users are not always clear about the reasons why they have been sanctioned. On the other hand, the review mechanisms do not allow to delve too deeply into the background of the matter, let alone explain the problem to a person through a customer service line. 

Faced with unresolved cases or unfavorable decisions, many creators resort to social media to make noise. Whether through tweets, posts or videos, these users try to attract the attention of the companies' support teams, even if this is not the regular channel for doing so. Although a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be pinpointed with certainty, it is possible that some of these campaigns have influenced the reversal of a decision. 

The experience creators gain on how to navigate content moderation becomes part of the conversation. They share testimonials, give advice and offer seemingly unknown solutions: use filters, mute some words or delete, re-upload the content... As if they were home remedies, solutions emerge, but also misinformation. The Myths section addresses some of these ideas of popular wisdom.

Of course, the average user doesn't have a megaphone to air their cause or share advice. And while Circuito focuses on the challenges faced by creators, the cases allow anyone to navigate this topic. Incidentally, they also provide insight into successful experiences with content moderation: there are problems, but also solutions.