there's the personal connection: their brother has schizophrenia. That explains the raw edge in phrases like "the other schizos" - this isn't just academic for them. When they say voices shouldn't be shared at all, it's likely reflecting real pain seeing their brother's condition reinforced online. The shadowbanning question becomes deeply personal: how much should platforms suppress such content? Who does it protect? Who does it isolate?
For the essay structure, I should model exactly what they need: clear academic paragraphs with transitions. The outline must address both the technical aspects (platform policies) and ethical dimensions (mental health impact), while leaving room for their critical voice. The schizophrenia angle needs sensitive handling - acknowledging their perspective without endorsing stigma.
Most crucially, I must demonstrate how to use sources critically. The original research snippets about UCLA studies and Twitter Files can be woven into arguments rather than listed as facts. And I should explicitly invite them to develop their own stance, especially since they seem to lean toward stricter content removal than shadowbanning.
This time, no assumptions. Full paragraphs only, with optional elements they can adapt. The tone should balance academic rigor with recognition that this topic hits close to home. Might add a brief note at the end explicitly giving permission to sound "weird" or personal - that seems to be their authentic struggle here.
You're absolutely right — and I apologize. Mr. Mancini wants a traditional essay in paragraphs, not condensed notes or bullet points. Let’s fix this properly. Below is a rewritten, academically structured essay in full paragraphs that you can adapt into your own voice. It directly addresses your key concern: "Is shadowbanning harmful because it lets dangerous content reach vulnerable people?"
The Ethics of Shadowbanning: Protection or Perpetuation in Communities Discussing Mental Health?
Social media platforms face a complex ethical dilemma when moderating content related to mental health, particularly communities built around experiences like "gang stalking" or "targeted individuals" (TIs). Shadowbanning — the practice of quietly limiting a user’s reach without notification — is often justified by platforms as a tool to curb harmful misinformation while avoiding censorship debates. However, critics argue it fails to protect those most vulnerable: individuals experiencing psychosis or schizophrenia, who may interpret delusional narratives as validation. This raises a critical question: If shadowbanning only partially restricts content, does it inadvertently strengthen dangerous echo chambers?
Platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) insist shadowbanning targets behavior (e.g., spam, hate speech), not beliefs. When TI communities post about government mind control or directed energy weapons, their content often violates policies against misinformation. Yet shadowbanning does not remove this content entirely. Instead, it becomes harder to find for the general public — but remains fully visible to those already immersed in these communities. This creates a closed loop: content is pushed deeper into algorithmic corners, where it circulates only among those who already believe it. For individuals with schizophrenia, whose delusions may align with TI narratives, this creates a reinforced reality. As research from UCLA Health (2024) notes, such insulated spaces can worsen psychotic symptoms by normalizing delusional thinking.
The core problem is this: Shadowbanning treats symptoms, not causes. By reducing visibility without context, platforms avoid confronting harmful content directly. A user experiencing auditory hallucinations might encounter a shadowbanned post claiming "the voices are real government weapons." To them, the post’s very invisibility to outsiders "proves" its authenticity — "They’re hiding the truth!" Meanwhile, the lack of counter-narratives or mental health resources in these spaces allows dangerous ideas to thrive unchallenged. Platforms effectively outsource moderation to the community itself, which has no incentive to debunk its core beliefs.
A stronger approach would be transparent intervention. If content risks harming vulnerable users, platforms should:
Label it clearly: e.g., "This post conflicts with scientific consensus on mental health."
Provide resources: Direct users to crisis hotlines or medical information.
Restrict reach decisively — not covertly — if content promotes self-harm or harassment.
Shadowbanning, as it exists today, satisfies no one. It angers TI communities who feel persecuted, fails to protect the mentally vulnerable, and lacks the courage to enforce clear policies. For voices that risk exploiting psychosis, partial suppression is not protection — it’s passive complicity.
Key Features for Your Essay:
Paragraph Structure: Each idea flows in formal academic prose.
Your Voice: I kept phrasing direct and slightly provocative (e.g., "passive complicity") — tweak to sound like you.
Addresses Your Concern: Directly tackles the "who sees shadowbanned content?" issue (spoiler: mostly those already in the bubble).
Academic Sources: References like "UCLA Health (2024)" show research — you can cite these properly later.
Critical Angle: Agrees that shadowbanning TI/schizophrenia content might be more dangerous than allowing or fully removing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment