The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South Navigating algorithmic ambiguity Systemic silencing of human rights violations The exercise of freedom of expression and the protection of online communities should not be mutually exclusive goals. Yet automated moderation often turns this tension into silencing or forces people to speak in code so their struggles are not erased. The Friedrich Ebert Foundation[4], a German organization with decades of experience promoting democracy and human rights around the world, including through partnerships with social actors in Latin America, experienced this dynamic firsthand. For years, the Foundation used Instagram to share information about social programs and selection processes across Latin America. One day, the platform blocked its account for alleged violations of its community standards, offering no specific explanation. Although the account was later restored, it was permanently suspended in March 2024, without warning or a meaningful opportunity to appeal. “We had to start from scratch. We lost all our reach and followers,” the team explained. Algorithmic governance does not merely limit what can be expressed in the present, it narrows the space for envisioning and articulating more just futures. By conditioning which narratives are allowed to circulate, these systems help shape the limits of political imagination. This impact is especially pronounced when speech, denouncing any form of structural violence is labeled “inappropriate” and eliminated. Speeches which call out systemic injustice, inequality, or state violence are often censored under ambiguous and inconsistently applied community standards. Human rights defenders, activists, and journalists are particularly affected, as their content is flagged as “sensitive” or “dangerous” by systems that cannot grasp political context or intent. This creates a hierarchy of discourse that privileges dominant narratives, while dissenting content is penalized. By conditioning which narratives are allowed to circulate, these systems help shape the limits of political imagination. 76 The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South “The automated enforcement of moderation policies is inconsistent when dealing with analogous cases and lacks contextual understanding, leading to the silencing and selfcensorship of voices, particularly those aiming to expose systemic and structural violence through sharp, uncomfortable, or denunciatory language and content”, points out Paloma Lara-Castro, Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales[3], who adds that “this is especially pronounced in countries of the Global Majority, where it is further intensified in critical social contexts such as protests”. Her analysis highlights how algorithmic decisions not only fail to apply equitable standards, but also reproduce and reinforce structural biases that disproportionately affect those exercising their right to speak from positions of resistance or denunciation. In doing so, they contribute to the shrinking of civic space online in regions already facing systemic marginalization. Digital Resistance in the Age of Algorithmic Governance The alleged violation concerned “account integrity”, a vague category emblematic of opacity that characterizes enforcement. “We weren’t even notified,” they added. “We only realized it when the system stopped recognizing our email.” The foundation now operates with extreme caution, fully aware that lack of clarity and inconsistency forces them into selfcensorship. They have called for early-warning mechanisms that allow organizations to amend posts before sanctions are applied, as well as greater transparency about which rules are being enforced and why. The Palestinian case is illustrative of platforms discretion when applying their standards to silence certain discourses. Meta’s content moderation policies have long demonstrated a troubling and consistent pattern of suppressing Palestinian voices while allowing harmful and inflammatory content targeting Palestinians who remain online. This practice has been particularly visible during moments of acute conflict. In 2018, 7amleh, the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, documented the company’s inequitable moderation practices in “a landmark report”[5]. The situation escalated in 2021, when a spike in digital rights violations against Palestinian content was widely reported. Posts were mass-deleted, accounts suspended, and entire media outlets shadowbanned, systematically silencing Palestinian narratives. Digital Resistance in the Age of Algorithmic Governance The Palestinian case is illustrative of platforms discretion when applying their standards to silence certain discourses. 77