The platforms’ governance of far-right conspiracism

The pandemic brought about new dynamics in the extremist protest arena. Fueled by anger against measures taken to contain Covid-19, new movements formed via social media platforms which combined far-right ideologies with conspiracy theories about the crisis as a pretext to radically transform national societies. The speed and scale of disinformation and hate as well as the pressure from governments to contain incitement and malinformation about health-related issues prompted new policies by tech companies to combat the free floating of conspiracist narratives and extremist organizing. In consequence, since the outbreak of the pandemic, huge numbers of postings and accounts have been removed to save the platforms’ users from harm. While this behavior has been welcomed by governments and civil society alike, criticism mounted about the regulatory power of platforms undemocratically defining the boundaries of public discourse. Hence, success and failure of new (and old) protest actors depend in great part on the decision making of tech companies. This brings about questions on which basis platforms make their decisions in granting access to political debate and how these decisions are justified and communicated to the public. Approaching the latter question, this paper delves into the justification narratives of tech companies in dealing with far-right conspiracism. Studying platforms as central players in the combat of the recent rise of extremism, central logics of self-regulation and content moderation in times of crisis will be exposed and compared across platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Telegram. Theoretically grounded in the sociology of justification (Boltanski/Thévenot), this paper empirically examines three cases of platform interventionism in the German country context: The QAnon conspiracy cult, the Querdenken movement and the alternative media outlet Compact, a leading publication that combines far-right and conspiracist worldviews. Comparing rationales and procedures, the paper aims to unfold the interrelated dynamics of the acting of extremist actors, the supposed social responsibility of tech companies and the mounting pressure of further regulation. By bringing literature on platform governance, social media and the prevention of extremism, this paper aims to provide a fresh perspective on the technological affordances of far-right conspiracist mobilization under the condition of crisis.