Cited by 60Ethics and Social Impacts of AIFreedom of Expression and DefamationDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Contesting algorithms: Restoring the public interest in content filtering by artificial intelligence

Open access
Elkin-Koren, Niva·2020·Big Data & Society

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1177/2053951720932296

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
Venue
Big Data & Society
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
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