Understanding the (In)Effectiveness of Content Moderation: A Case Study of Facebook in the Context of the U.S. Capitol Riot

Social media networks commonly employ content moderation as a tool to limit the spread of harmful content. However, the efficacy of this strategy in limiting the delivery of harmful content to users is not well understood. In this paper, we create a framework to quantify the efficacy of content moderation and use our metrics to analyze content removal on Facebook within the U.S. news ecosystem. In a data set of over 2M posts with 1.6B user engagements collected from 2,551 U.S. news sources before and during the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021, we identify 10,811 removed posts. We find that the active engagement life cycle of Facebook posts is very short, with 90% of all engagement occurring within the first 30 hours after posting. Thus, even relatively quick intervention allowed significant accrual of engagement before removal, and prevented only 21% of the predicted engagement potential during a baseline period before the U.S. Capitol attack. Nearly a week after the attack, Facebook began removing older content, but these removals occurred so late in these posts' engagement life cycles that they disrupted less than 1% of predicted future engagement, highlighting the limited impact of this intervention. Content moderation likely has limits in its ability to prevent engagement, especially in a crisis, and we recommend that other approaches such as slowing down the rate of content diffusion be investigated.