First published: 08/08/2024
By Grace Carter
In today's digitally-driven world, social media platforms like LinkedIn have become essential tools for spreading awareness, building communities, and fostering meaningful discussions. So, imagine the frustration when a post about my new website, "The Female Body," with its mission to educate and empower, was met with deafening silence—despite my 13,000 followers and a track record of achieving six-figure impressions. It's not just disappointing; it’s alarming. Twice now, I’ve posted about this vital subject, only to receive zero engagement. This stark contrast to my usual viral reach begs the question: is LinkedIn censoring content about the female body?
The silence isn't just discouraging; it’s indicative of a deeper issue. If LinkedIn’s algorithm is indeed filtering or shadow-banning this type of content, what does that say about the progress we're making in discussing social inequalities surrounding the female body? Historically, conversations about women's health, bodies, and rights have been stifled by societal norms and biases. Now, it appears that technology, which should be a neutral platform, is perpetuating this suppression.
"If LinkedIn’s algorithm is indeed filtering or shadow-banning this type of content, what does that say about the progress we're making in discussing social inequalities surrounding the female body?"
Engaging with LinkedIn's support team to understand this issue has proven futile, offering no clarity or solutions. This lack of transparency is troubling. Algorithms are often black boxes, their inner workings shrouded in secrecy. But what’s clear is that they reflect the values and biases of their creators. If these algorithms are predominantly designed and programmed by men, are we unwittingly embedding and perpetuating misogynist biases through technology?
This concern isn't unfounded. The tech industry has long grappled with gender imbalances. A 2020 report by the World Economic Forum revealed that women make up just 26% of data and AI positions globally. If the perspectives shaping our digital experiences are overwhelmingly male, it’s not surprising that issues predominantly affecting women might be sidelined or misinterpreted.
To move beyond this, several steps need to be taken. Firstly, tech companies must prioritise diversity within their engineering and development teams. A broader range of perspectives can help ensure that algorithms are more inclusive and equitable. Secondly, there must be greater transparency in how these algorithms operate and how decisions are made regarding content visibility. Users need to understand why certain posts are suppressed, especially when they pertain to critical social issues.
"Users need to understand why certain posts are suppressed, especially when they pertain to critical social issues."
Additionally, social media platforms should actively seek to engage with and support content creators focusing on marginalised topics. Instead of silencing these voices, platforms like LinkedIn should amplify them, recognising their importance in fostering a more inclusive and informed society.
The responsibility lies not just with tech companies but with all of us. We must advocate for change, support diverse voices, and demand accountability from the platforms we use daily. By doing so, we can hope to create a digital landscape where discussions about the female body, and all that it encompasses, can flourish without fear of censorship.
In conclusion, the apparent shadow-banning of my posts about "The Female Body" highlights a troubling trend in how social media algorithms may be stifling essential conversations. To progress, we must challenge these technological barriers and ensure that our digital spaces are as inclusive and open as possible. Only then can we hope to address the social inequalities that persist in our society.
Grace Carter is a passionate writer on issues affecting women's health. You can read more of her words at www.agirlcalledgrace.co.uk
Comentarios