The internet was supposed to be the great equalizer—a space where everyone could express themselves freely. But as social media giants have grown, so has their obsession with control. Platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have turned into digital monarchies where users are often punished for perceived violations rather than being given a fair chance to appeal or correct mistakes. Worse yet, many of these “violations” are the result of overzealous algorithms rather than intentional rule-breaking.
Even more disturbing is the revelation that this control isn’t limited to automated systems. Mark Zuckerberg openly admitted that Facebook complied with demands from the U.S. government to silence accounts representing so-called “unacceptable” viewpoints. Additionally, Facebook has reportedly shut down thousands of Palestinian accounts at the request of the Israeli government. This isn’t moderation; it’s censorship through corporate fascism—bowing to political pressure rather than fostering open dialogue.
Despite possessing advanced AI systems that can easily remove content deemed problematic, these companies insist on punishing users through shadowbans, demonetization, and outright account removal. Why? Because their model is not about fairness—it’s about control, profit, and performing authority for advertisers and governments alike.
Why Social Media Companies Act Like Medieval Gods
When social media companies punish users, it often feels like facing a medieval judgment, where the accused has little to no power to appeal effectively. Whether it’s shadowbanning, demonetization, or outright account termination, platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook seem to revel in punishment rather than mere correction.
The irony? These platforms already possess the technology to simply remove or flag content they consider problematic. Their AI and automated systems are perfectly capable of deleting perceived violations within seconds. So, why the need for punishment at all? Why not just remove the content and offer a genuine, human-reviewed appeals process?
The Cultural Roots of Punishment
Part of the answer lies in the cultural and historical context of American society. The United States has a long-standing tradition of moral policing, stemming from Puritan roots that emphasized righteousness, punishment, and the moral duty to correct wrongdoing. This mindset has permeated many of America’s institutions, including corporate structures, where a deeply ingrained belief in punishment as a form of justice still persists.
The current approach to moderation mimics the American justice system—focused on deterrence through punitive measures rather than rehabilitation or understanding. Social media companies often justify this by claiming it’s necessary to maintain “community standards.” But in reality, it’s a crude attempt to establish control over platforms that have grown far beyond their ability to manage fairly.
Shadow Banning: A Dirty Secret of Moderation
Perhaps the most insidious form of punishment is shadow banning—where a user’s content is deliberately limited or hidden without any formal warning. The user is left in the dark, unaware of their “crime” and unable to address it. Shadow banning is not merely a tool to prevent harmful content; it’s often a mechanism to nudge content in directions that maximize profit or align with cultural biases.
For example, AI systems frequently flag images that reveal too much skin, mistaking art, fitness, or body positivity posts for adult content. This form of moderation doesn’t protect anyone; it merely reinforces societal taboos against sexuality and body expression. Ironically, platforms capable of age-verification still choose to suppress content that is clearly not harmful but merely sensual or erotic in nature.
Twitter and Tumblr, to their credit, have experimented with systems that blur or cover sensitive images unless the user chooses to view them. This approach respects both the creator’s intent and the viewer’s preferences. It’s a step in the right direction, proving that content regulation does not require silencing voices—it requires thoughtful design.
Punishment As Performance
More than enforcing rules, social media companies engage in performative moderation. By issuing strikes, warnings, and bans, they signal to governments, advertisers, and the public that they are taking their responsibility seriously. It’s less about righting wrongs and more about broadcasting authority. This becomes especially evident when creators like Jimmy Dore, who challenged mainstream narratives during the COVID crisis, are penalized not for harmful intent, but for daring to express dissenting opinions.
YouTube’s strikes against Dore were not just about enforcing guidelines; they were about quashing content that threatened their curated public image. The irony is that platforms insist they are neutral, yet their actions reveal a preference for conformity over truth.
AI Moderation and The Illusion of Justice
Appealing a content removal feels like shouting into the void because, in most cases, AI handles both the violation detection and the appeal process. Algorithms are inherently limited in their ability to understand context, humor, political discourse, or evolving science. When the appeal is processed by the same automated system that flagged the content in the first place, how can justice ever be truly served?
Social media companies have offloaded responsibility onto software, not because it’s more effective, but because it’s more efficient and less expensive. This efficiency, however, comes at the cost of fairness and accountability.
Unintentional Violations vs. Deliberate Abuse
The most frustrating aspect of this punishment model is its inability to distinguish between accidental violations and deliberate abuse. The vast majority of users who violate community standards do so unintentionally. Meanwhile, truly malicious actors—such as Facebook dating scammers promoting porn sites—are well aware of the platform rules and willingly break them. Their strategy relies on sheer volume: creating thousands of accounts, knowing most will be reported and shut down within days. The system fails to differentiate between honest mistakes by genuine users and calculated rule-breaking by bad actors.
Lady Justice: Blindfolded or Simply Blind?
Ah, Justitia—the Roman goddess of justice, standing proudly with her scales and sword. Her blindfold has long been interpreted as a symbol of impartiality, representing the ideal of unbiased and fair judgment. But perhaps it also serves as a reminder of the limitations or blindness of judgment itself.
Are social media companies, like Justitia, truly impartial, or are they simply blind? Their moderation systems often fail to recognize context, mistaking art for obscenity, dissent for harm, and genuine dialogue for malicious intent. The blindfold of justice, when applied to these platforms, becomes less a symbol of fairness and more a sign of their inability to see clearly.
Moving Forward
The solution? Replacing punishment with dialogue. Instead of strikes and bans, allow users to correct or contextualize their content. Allow appeals to be handled by actual human beings. The future of free expression depends on how willing these platforms are to accept that their current methods are not just flawed but fundamentally unjust.
Rating of this article: 5.0 out of 5.0 stars