POLITICAL CONTENTS MODERATION: HIGH-PROFILE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Abstract

Contextualization: If the issue of content moderation on platforms already raises stormy discussions, the problem is even greater when it comes to political issues. The topic is especially sensitive in election years, but it has a social impact at any time, especially regarding its possible repercussions on the democratic game. Between mistakes and successes, companies involved in this challenge have created specific strategies to deal with the matter, as is the case with Meta, by creating the cross-check program for the called high-profiles. Considering this scenario, the question arises: What criteria or criteria does Meta apply to the review of political content?

Objective: The objective of this study is to demonstrate how the normative arrangement of the Meta for moderation of content published by politicians has been constructed, especially following the Trump case, which gave rise to the most complex of the recommendations made by the Supervisory Committee created by the company.

Method: Methodologically, it adopts the socio-legal line, analyzing content moderation from a broader perspective of an external observer. Predominantly using inductive reasoning, the technique consisted of surveying and studying documents and bibliography, with a special focus on those coming from the Meta’s Oversight Board.

Results: Ultimately, it was possible to clearly verify the divergences and convergences in the criteria adopted by the Meta and in the Committee's own decisions, highlighting possible risks of an ad hoc application of the right to freedom of expression, substantiating what could be called “high-profile freedom of expression”.