Contesting algorithms: Restoring the public interest in content filtering by artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, artificial intelligence has been deployed by online platforms to prevent the upload of allegedly illegal content or to remove unwarranted expressions. These systems are trained to spot objectionable content and to remove it, block it, or filter it out before it is even uploaded. Artificial intelligence filters offer a robust approach to content moderation which is shaping the public sphere. This dramatic shift in norm setting and law enforcement is potentially game-changing for democracy. Artificial intelligence filters carry censorial power, which could bypass traditional checks and balances secured by law. Their opaque and dynamic nature creates barriers to oversight, and conceals critical value choices and tradeoffs. Currently, we lack adequate tools to hold them accountable. This paper seeks to address this gap by introducing an adversarial procedure— – Contesting Algorithms. It proposes to deliberately introduce friction into the dominant removal systems governed by artificial intelligence. Algorithmic content moderation often seeks to optimize a single goal, such as removing copyright-infringing materials or blocking hate speech, while other values in the public interest, such as fair use or free speech, are often neglected. Contesting algorithms introduce an adversarial design which reflects conflicting values, and thereby may offer a check on dominant removal systems. Facilitating an adversarial intervention may promote democratic principles by keeping society in the loop. An adversarial public artificial intelligence system could enhance dynamic transparency, facilitate an alternative public articulation of social values using machine learning systems, and restore societal power to deliberate and determine social tradeoffs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
As automated decision-making happens at an increasingly large scale, it will be necessary to establish new forms of ongoing outside scrutiny.
“As automated decision-making happens at an increasingly large scale, it will be necessary to establish new forms of ongoing outside scrutiny (Bayamlıoğlu, 2021;Edwards & Veale, 2018;Elkin-Koren, 2020;Vaccaro et al., 2019).”
From Contestable AI by Design: Towards a Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Elkin-Koren, 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Elkin-Koren, N.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Elkin-Koren, Niva
- ORCID
- Elkin-Koren, Niva
- Venue
- Big Data & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3045881806
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 9.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Israel Science Foundation (1820/17)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- automated content moderation, artificial intelligence, content filtering, public interest, democratic accountability, censorship, transparency, freedom of expression, fair use, copyright infringement, hate speech, digital platforms, public sphere, deliberative democracy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review