R46662 — Social Media: Content Dissemination and Moderation Practices

Social media platforms disseminate information quickly to billions of global users. One of the main features of social media is the primacy of user-generated content: users can act as producers and consumers of content. Users can create individual profiles; post text, images, or videos; and interact with content by commenting on it, reacting to it, and sharing it with others. Thus, social media platforms benefit from network effects—an increase in the number of users of a platform increases its perceived value for users. Social media operators (i.e., companies that operate social media platforms) have economic incentives to increase the number of users on their platforms and to increase user engagement, such as clicking links or commenting on posts. Most operators do not charge users to establish accounts and use at least portions of the platform. Instead, these operators rely on revenue from online advertising (ads). Operators may be able to increase their online advertising revenue by incentivizing users to spend more time on the platform. By increasing user engagement with content, operators can collect more data about each user and offer personalized ads. Social media operators disseminate and moderate content on their platforms to enhance user engagement, expand their active user base, strengthen their network effects, and increase their revenue through online advertising, among other reasons. Operators manage and distribute the continuous influx of user-generated content through their network structure and algorithms. Users can establish connections to other users of the platform, creating social networks or communities that can be based on common interests, relationships that exist offline, employment, or other factors. While some platforms prioritize content from a user’s network connections, they also typically use algorithms to prioritize content based on its potential relevance to the user’s interests, regardless of whether the content was generated by someone in the user’s network. Algorithms identify and filter content that violate social media platforms’ policies. Operators balance the goal of prioritizing content that increases user engagement and moderating content that violates their policies, such as content that may be illegal, harmful, or objectionable, including child sexual abuse material, and content that may incite violence, misinformation, and spam. Algorithms also prioritize content on social media platforms based on users’ online behavior, such as content that is clicked on or shared with other users. Operators may choose to moderate content differently across platforms; there is no uniform standard for content moderation. Content that violates social media platforms’ policies is identified by users and automated systems, such as algorithms and machine learning techniques. Some of the content is subsequently reviewed by human content moderators. Automated systems can quickly review large volumes of content but might not always remove content in accordance with stated policies. Some operators have altered their content moderation practices in efforts to balance trade-offs between free expression and removing objectionable content that might be harmful. Some Members of Congress have considered addressing concerns related to social media platforms’ content moderation practices. Some bills in the 119th Congress and previous Congresses would incentivize platforms to moderate content and prevent the spread of harmful content, misinformation, or other objectionable content. Other bills would have discouraged or prevented platforms from certain forms of content moderation. Introduced legislation has largely focused on Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §230). Section 230 protects interactive computer services providers and users from liability for publishing—and in some instances, restricting access to or availability of—another user’s content. Congress might consider various options to address content moderation practices on social media platforms. Congress might choose to take no action, in which case social media operators may continue to voluntarily adjust their algorithms and content moderation practices. Options to address content moderation practices could include asking operators to implement changes (e.g., in oversight hearings or letters to operators), which may or may not lead operators to implement changes sufficient to address identified concerns. Legislative actions could include amending Section 230, requiring operators to increase transparency about their content moderation practices, regulating operators’ content moderation practices, or implementing federal advisory or regulatory oversight of social media platforms. Any legislative efforts might raise a range of legal, social, and economic considerations.

Curated by CRS — every bill listed in this report's relatedMaterials. Edge type cited_in_report, gold confidence.

• HR 908 — Stop the Censorship Act · 119th Cong
• S 840 — Digital Integrity in Democracy Act · 119th Cong
• HR 633 — TAKE IT DOWN Act · 119th Cong
• S 278 — Kids Off Social Media Act · 119th Cong
• S 146 — TAKE IT DOWN Act · 119th Cong
• S 69 — COLLUDE Act · 119th Cong
• HR 9584 — Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act · 118th Cong
• HR 4624 — Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act · 118th Cong
• S 4391 — Investing in Digital Skills Act · 118th Cong
• S 2325 — Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act · 118th Cong
• S 921 — DISCOURSE Act · 118th Cong
• HR 573 — CASE–IT Act · 118th Cong
• S 483 — Internet PACT Act · 118th Cong