Isn’t it a human right to have freedom of speech?! And who governs it or allows algorhythms to even exists in the ways in which they do, full knowing the dangers behind it?! We’ll keep that for another day. More data needed.

— Susan Ndinga-Wright | SHS – Human First

Another fascinating way to expose the bias of social media platforms is to investigate something people rarely think to examine:

THE POSTS THAT NEVER MAKE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

Not simply the posts that receive fewer likes.

Not the posts that fail to become popular.

I am talking about posts that cannot be published, posts that cannot be reposted, posts that become inaccessible, posts that appear blacked out, and posts whose distribution is restricted without any meaningful explanation.

And I am speaking from my own experience.

For approximately three years, I have been observing patterns across different platforms, particularly Meta, but also in my interactions with ChatGPT.

And the amount of information you can collect through your own ordinary consumption is extraordinary.

The problem is that people consume without necessarily investigating the mechanisms governing what they are consuming.

Let me give you the most recent example.

I have attached a screenshot of a post I made concerning the narrative around potential blackouts and Russia.

My post reads:

“They’re planning the blackouts and blaming it on the Russians.”

That statement reflects my interpretation of the political narratives I have been observing, particularly the way Russia is repeatedly presented in British public discourse as the explanation for potential threats and disruptions.

Meanwhile, Russia is also engaged in international discussions involving other major powers, including the United States and China.

I question the selective presentation of these circumstances. I question the consistency of the information being offered to the British public, and I question the absence of equally rigorous examination of our own institutions.

But here is what makes this example particularly useful.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER MY INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, INCORRECT, A HUNCH OR AN ESTABLISHED FACT.

That is not the investigation I am introducing here.

The investigation is into what happens to information once somebody attempts to publish it.

Because I have encountered this repeatedly.

There have been posts containing arguments, documented information and factual material that I have experienced difficulty publishing or reposting.

There are posts on my own profile that appear blacked out.

And the pattern is not confined to this one subject, one post or one platform.

This latest example simply made me decide that it was time to articulate what I have been observing.

NOW, IMAGINE INVESTIGATING SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS THROUGH THEIR OWN DATA.

Imagine taking a platform to court and demanding an examination of what happened to specific posts.

Not merely asking how many views they received.

I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH REACH THEY WERE ACTUALLY GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE.

There is a difference.

A post receiving 100 views tells us how many recorded views it received.

It does not, by itself, tell us how many people the platform made it available to, whether it was eligible for recommendation, whether its distribution was restricted, or whether attempts to share it were interrupted.

Those are different measurements.

And those differences matter enormously.

I would want to examine the complete trace of selected posts.

When was the post submitted?

Was it successfully published?

Was it made publicly accessible?

Was it eligible for algorithmic recommendations?

Was its distribution subsequently reduced?

Were any restrictions applied?

What criteria triggered those restrictions?

Were users prevented from reposting it?

Was the author informed?

And most importantly:

HOW DO THOSE DECISIONS COMPARE WITH THE TREATMENT OF OTHER POSTS ON THE SAME SUBJECT?

Because that is how we begin to investigate patterns rather than isolated incidents.

Take a hundred posts documenting institutional misconduct, government decisions, corporate accountability, social inequality or other matters of public interest.

Then examine a hundred posts on comparable subjects that present a different position.

Compare the publication records.

Compare recommendation eligibility.

Compare distribution opportunities.

Compare moderation interventions.

Compare the explanations given to the users.

And follow those patterns across time.

THE QUESTION IS NOT SIMPLY WHAT THE PUBLIC CHOSE TO ENGAGE WITH. IT IS ALSO WHAT THE PLATFORM CHOSE TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR ENGAGEMENT.

And that is a completely different dimension of public information.

What makes this even more interesting is the potential to use a platform’s own established practices, standards, policies and recorded decisions as the foundation for investigating its accountability.

We would not necessarily have to depend on speculation about what was happening behind the scenes.

We could examine what happened, when it happened, how it happened, and whether the platform’s explanations were consistent with its actions.

Of course, access to the relevant internal records would be necessary to determine precisely why particular outcomes occurred.

But that is precisely why those records deserve investigation.

AND META, IN PARTICULAR, IS WHERE I HAVE OBSERVED SOME OF THE MOST STRIKING EXAMPLES IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE.

There have been numerous occasions when I have attempted to circulate material and encountered obstacles that were not explained to me.

Sometimes I could not post.

Sometimes I could not repost.

Sometimes material on my profile appeared blacked out.

These are experiences that can be documented.

The screenshots, timestamps, publication attempts, account records, post histories and subsequent changes can all become part of an evidence trail.

And when those individual experiences accumulate over years, they become an archive that deserves systematic examination.

I am not suggesting that every failed publication automatically proves deliberate suppression.

I AM SAYING THAT THE REPEATED EXPERIENCES THEMSELVES ARE EVIDENCE WORTH EXAMINING, RATHER THAN DISMISSING.

There is a difference between claiming to know an undisclosed intention and demanding to examine an observable outcome.

My interest is in the latter.

And I have been paying attention to these outcomes for years.

There is another dimension to all this that I find particularly revealing.

People often discuss freedom of expression as though the only question is whether somebody is legally permitted to speak.

But what happens when the infrastructure through which millions of people communicate controls whether those expressions can circulate?

What happens when somebody can technically publish a statement, but cannot determine whether it has been restricted from reaching the wider public?

What happens when factual information receives an unexplained intervention while other information circulates freely?

WHAT DOES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION MEAN IN A DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE CONDITIONS OF VISIBILITY ARE CONTROLLED BY SYSTEMS THE PUBLIC CANNOT FULLY INSPECT?

That is a governance question.

An accountability question.

An integrity question.

And a question of continuity, because today’s restrictions can influence tomorrow’s public understanding, which in turn influences the decisions society makes afterward.

Information does not exist separately from its consequences.

What people are exposed to influences what they know.

What they know influences what they believe.

What they believe influences what they accept, reject, question and demand.

And over time, those accumulated influences shape the society we live in.

Which brings me back to the most important point.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RUSSIA.

It is not about blackouts.

It is not about whether you agree with my political interpretation.

That screenshot is simply the latest example that brought an investigation I have been conducting through ordinary experience into sharper focus.

THIS IS ABOUT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT BECOMES VISIBLE, WHAT REMAINS INVISIBLE, AND HOW THAT POWER IS EXERCISED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

I have spent years observing social behaviour, institutions, public narratives and the systems through which information travels.

And I continue to find it fascinating how much evidence is available within our everyday encounters when we stop merely participating and begin investigating.

You do not necessarily need to be inside an institution to begin investigating its conduct.

Sometimes the starting point is simply documenting what happens when you interact with it.

One publication attempt.

One restriction.

One screenshot.

One comparison.

One inconsistency.

And then another.

Until individual experiences begin forming a pattern that can be examined against actual records.

THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GUESS WHETHER INFORMATION IS BEING SELECTIVELY DISTRIBUTED. THE SYSTEMS MAKING THOSE DECISIONS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO MEANINGFUL SCRUTINY.

And if a platform’s practices are fair, consistent and properly justified, an investigation should help establish that too.

Accountability is not about forcing a predetermined conclusion.

It is about making the evidence available for examination.

Because selective truths are not the whole truth.

And the absence of information can be just as consequential as the information that is presented.

**STOP MERELY CONSUMING THE INFORMATION.

START INVESTIGATING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT REACHES YOU.**

You may discover that the most revealing part of social media is not always what appears on your screen.

IT MAY BE WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE IT EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR THERE.

— Susan Ndinga-Wright (SNW)

SHS – Human First | The Womb of The Unknown Need

Integrity is not merely examining what is presented. It is examining what has been excluded from the presentation, and why.