GPT-4o: Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok apply moderation rules that reflect U.S. political and business interests, often influenced by domestic concerns.
Many U.S. platforms use opaque algorithms that may de-prioritize or suppress content without informing the publisher, making it difficult for European governments to predict or counteract the impact.
Asking AI services: If EU countries want to ensure that messaging to their populations is in accordance with European norms and values and want to avoid the risk of content getting censored, redacted, blocked and shadowbanned, either for political or business reasons, should they be using US based platforms to get their message across? Also, can you give examples of US based (social) media platforms blocking and shadowbanning for political or commercial reasons?
ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
If EU countries want to ensure that their messaging aligns with European norms and values and remains free from potential censorship, redaction, blocking, or shadowbanning—especially for political or business reasons—then relying on U.S.-based platforms poses several risks:
Risks of Using U.S.-Based Platforms
Jurisdiction & Compliance – U.S.-based platforms operate under American legal frameworks, including the First Amendment (which prioritizes free speech) and Section 230 (which gives platforms legal immunity for user content). This can lead to discrepancies with European regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Content Moderation Policies – Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok apply moderation rules that reflect U.S. political and business interests, often influenced by domestic concerns such as misinformation, security, or lobbying efforts.
Shadowbanning & Algorithmic Bias – Many U.S. platforms use opaque algorithms that may de-prioritize or suppress content without informing the publisher, making it difficult for European governments to predict or counteract the impact.
Political & Commercial Pressures – Major tech platforms face pressures from both government agencies and corporate advertisers, which can influence their moderation policies in ways that might not align with European interests.
Examples of U.S. Platforms Engaging in Content Censorship, Blocking, or Shadowbanning
Twitter/X & Facebook Suppression of Political Speech:
In 2020, Twitter and Facebook blocked the New York Post's story on Hunter Biden's laptop, claiming it violated policies against hacked materials. This move was widely criticized as political interference.
Twitter (pre-Elon Musk) was found to have shadowbanned conservative voices, such as members of the U.S. Republican Party, by limiting the visibility of their accounts.
YouTube Censorship Based on U.S. Political Interests:
YouTube has demonetized or removed content related to geopolitical issues, including discussions around COVID-19, Ukraine, and election fraud claims.
RT (Russia Today) and other state-affiliated media outlets were deplatformed or blocked on YouTube, even in countries that did not request such actions.
TikTok's Algorithmic Suppression:
Despite being owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, TikTok operates under significant U.S. influence. Reports have shown that TikTok downgrades content related to LGBTQ+ rights in certain countries or boosts pro-establishment content depending on geopolitical interests.
TikTok shadowbanned content related to the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, leading to claims of partisan bias.
Facebook’s Influence on News & Public Discourse:
Facebook has blocked or limited news outlets based on advertising relationships. In Australia, it briefly blocked all news content in response to proposed regulation requiring payment to publishers.
Facebook's moderation choices have often been influenced by U.S. lobbying groups, sometimes leading to overzealous suppression of non-American perspectives on global issues (e.g., Israel-Palestine).
Alternatives for EU Messaging
If EU countries want to maintain sovereignty over their messaging, they should consider:
Developing European-based platforms for public discourse and government communication (e.g., Mastodon, Matrix).
Using EU-regulated alternatives that adhere to European digital norms (e.g., EU-hosted video streaming services).
Ensuring interoperability between EU platforms and larger global networks to avoid isolation while maintaining control over speech governance.
Would you like insights into how the DSA might be used to counteract these challenges?
Text continues below the image»
Grok’s answer:
The question of whether EU countries should utilize US-based platforms to communicate with their populations involves several layers of consideration, particularly concerning alignment with European norms and values and the risks associated with content moderation practices like censorship, redaction, blocking, and shadowbanning.
Should EU Countries Use US-Based Platforms?
Alignment with European Values:
Pros: US platforms offer vast reach and are well-established, providing an existing infrastructure that can be very effective for disseminating information quickly to a wide audience.
Cons: There's a potential misalignment with European data protection laws (like GDPR) and cultural norms, which could lead to conflicts. US platforms might not prioritize European values in their content moderation or data handling practices, which could result in content being moderated in ways that do not reflect European standards or public interest.
Risk of Censorship/Moderation:
Political Reasons: Platforms might make decisions based on their interpretation of what constitutes harmful or illegal content, which can vary significantly from European legal frameworks or political climates. This can lead to content being moderated in ways that might not align with EU public policy or free speech norms.
Commercial Reasons: Content moderation can also be influenced by commercial interests, where platforms might act to protect their business interests, potentially at odds with public interest or government messages.
Control Over Communication:
EU countries might prefer platforms where they have more direct control or influence over content moderation practices to ensure messaging aligns with public policy and cultural values.
Legislation and Regulation:
The EU has been actively legislating to regulate big tech, with laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA) aiming to ensure platforms take more responsibility for content. However, compliance with these laws by US platforms might still leave room for interpretation or conflict.
Examples of US-Based Platforms Blocking or Shadowbanning:
Political Reasons:
Twitter: There have been instances where Twitter has suspended or limited visibility of accounts that spread political misinformation or controversial political views, including actions against high-profile politicians or political movements. For example, during various elections, Twitter has labeled or restricted the visibility of certain tweets or accounts based on their content.
Facebook: Has faced scrutiny for removing or downgrading posts related to political protests or movements, especially when these might lead to civil unrest. The platform has been criticized for its handling of political advertising and misinformation campaigns.
Commercial Reasons:
YouTube: Has faced claims of demonetizing or shadowbanning content creators whose content might be controversial or not align with advertiser-friendly guidelines, impacting their visibility or revenue. This often involves political commentary or topics that could be seen as risky for brands.
Instagram: There have been discussions around shadowbanning where accounts see a sudden drop in engagement due to algorithmic changes or content moderation flags, particularly affecting those posting about sensitive or political issues.
Given these considerations, EU countries might consider:
Developing or Supporting Local Platforms: To have more direct control over content and ensure it aligns with European norms and legal frameworks.
Diversifying Communication Channels: Not relying solely on US platforms but also using European or globally neutral platforms that might be more aligned with EU regulations and cultural values.
Negotiating with US Platforms: To ensure compliance with EU laws and values, though this might not eliminate all risks of misalignment due to differing legal interpretations or platform policies.
In summary, while US platforms can be effective for reach, the risks associated with content moderation practices suggest EU countries should approach their use cautiously, considering both local alternatives and regulatory compliance.
Text continues below the image»
Perplexity’s answer:
Based on recent developments, EU countries should be cautious about relying solely on US-based platforms to disseminate important messages to their populations. The European Union has implemented stricter regulations on content moderation through the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024. This act aims to tackle "misinformation," "disinformation," and "hate speech" online, potentially affecting content from EU countries themselves.US-based platforms have faced criticism for content moderation practices that may not align with European values and norms. Examples of US-based social media platforms blocking or shadowbanning content for political or commercial reasons include:
Twitter (now X) under Elon Musk's ownership has been accused of dismantling safety standards, leading to concerns about the spread of disinformation4.
In October 2020, Twitter censored the New York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which was later acknowledged as an interference in the democratic process.
Facebook (Meta) has been criticized for removing fact-checking programs, potentially enabling the spread of misinformation.
To ensure their messages reach their populations without risk of censorship or manipulation, EU countries might consider:
Developing and promoting European-based social media platforms that adhere to EU regulations and values.
Utilizing a diverse range of communication channels, including traditional media and government-operated websites.
Strengthening transparency in media ownership and adopting measures against media concentration within the EU.
By diversifying their communication strategies and supporting the development of European digital platforms, EU countries can better control the dissemination of their messages while adhering to European norms and values.
Google Gemini’s answer:
While US-based platforms offer wide reach, EU countries might consider diversifying their approach for several reasons:
Alignment with European Values: European norms often prioritize data privacy, freedom of expression, and transparency. US platforms, while subject to some EU regulations, ultimately operate under US laws and their own terms of service, which may not perfectly align with European values.
Content Moderation: Content moderation policies on US platforms can be influenced by US political and commercial interests. This could lead to content being restricted or amplified in ways that don't reflect European priorities.
Risk of Censorship: While outright censorship is unlikely, the potential for content to be blocked, shadowbanned, or demoted exists. This risk is heightened when content touches on sensitive political or commercial issues.
Examples of US Platforms' Actions:
Facebook/Meta: Has been criticized for its handling of political ads and for algorithms that may amplify divisive content.
Twitter/X: Has faced scrutiny for its content moderation policies, including decisions on labeling or removing certain accounts or posts.
YouTube: Has been accused of demonetizing or restricting content based on political viewpoints or commercial interests.
Alternative Approaches:
European Platforms: EU countries could explore using or investing in European-based social media platforms that prioritize European values and offer greater control over content moderation.
Direct Communication: Governments can utilize their own channels, such as official websites, press releases, and public broadcasts, to communicate directly with citizens.
Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborating with trusted media outlets and organizations within the EU can help ensure messaging aligns with European norms and reaches a wide audience.
By diversifying their communication strategies and considering European alternatives, EU countries can reduce their reliance on US-based platforms and mitigate the risks associated with content moderation and potential censorship.
