BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Overconfidence Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 20.2% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 871 faulty-reasoning hits from 430 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55% and a BS Rank of 59% (9,153 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.20% of the article peer group.

The Markup named Sigma Award finalist 
The global data journalism contest recognized The Markup’s investigation into shadowbanning on Instagram. 
*The Markup, now a part of CalMatters, uses investigative reporting, data analysis, and software engineering to challenge technology to serve the public good. 
Sign up for Klaxon, a newsletter that delivers our stories and tools directly to your inbox. 
* 
The Markup’s pioneering investigation into Instagram censorship has been named a finalist for a 2025 Sigma Award, which celebrates the best data journalism from around the world. 
Demoted, Deleted, and Denied: There’s More Than Just Shadowbanning on Instagram 
An investigation by The Markup found that the platform demoted images of the Israel–Hamas war, deleted captions without warning, and denied users the option to appeal 
February 25, 2024 8:00 a.m. 
UTC 
The Markup “Automated Censorship” reporting team implemented a first-of-its-kind field audit of Instagram’s content moderation algorithms that dissected patterns of censorship and uncovered censorship methods that had not previously been reported on. 
The investigation found that the platform demoted images of the Israel–Hamas war, deleted captions without warning, and denied users the option to appeal. 
The field audit, designed by Markup reporters Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett and Tomas Apodaca, used nearly 100 Instagram accounts to help us move beyond anecdotal claims and uncover measurable patterns of censorship. 
Along with the main investigation, Markup reporters published an extensive methodology to facilitate further research into online censorship. 
The Markup also released a guide on what to do if you think you’re shadowbanned on Instagram (co-published with USA Today), an explainer on how content moderation works at large social media platforms, and an Arabic translation of the investigation. 
Impact 
Researchers and journalists have used our methodology as an important guide on how to measure shadowbanning. 
For example, Nieuwsuur, a Dutch current affairs show, cited the investigation as the “most extensive research into this specific topic done so far,” and replicated our results with its own experiments. 
Our guide for Instagram users on what to do if you think you’re shadowbanned took on a second life when, in March 2024, Instagram modified the way it recommended posts about politics during a U.S. presidential election year. 
Automated Censorship also resonated deeply with readers and the Instagram community  we saw multiple readers share that they had been waiting years for an investigation like this one. 
The series also had some of the highest engagement since The Markup started publishing online. 
Congratulations to the entire team for recognition of their hard work. 
Congratulations too, to all of this year’s Sigma Award award finalists. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Markup: 2.1%The Markup: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%The Markup: 2.8%The Markup: 2.8%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 1.8%The Markup: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.8%The Markup: 1.0%The Markup: 0.2%Hindsight Bias8.8%This article: 17.9%The Markup: 2.1%The Markup: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias17.9%This article: 18.1%The Markup: 7.5%The Markup: 3.2%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%The Markup: 1.8%The Markup: 2.1%Optimism Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.6%The Markup: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%The Markup: 10.3%The Markup: 6.5%Negativity Bias14.0%This article: 7.9%The Markup: 1.3%The Markup: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 1.0%The Markup: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.7%The Markup: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%The Markup: 10.1%The Markup: 2.5%Halo Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%The Markup: 2.2%The Markup: 1.1%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.4%The Markup: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.2%The Markup: 7.5%The Markup: 3.8%Appeal to Authority20.2%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.2%The Markup: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%The Markup: 1.5%The Markup: 3.9%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.7%The Markup: 1.5%The Markup: 0.4%Bandwagon6.7%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 7.2%The Markup: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 1.9%The Markup: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.8%The Markup: 2.7%The Markup: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.7%The Markup: 3.5%The Markup: 3.0%Anecdotal13.7%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 1.9%The Markup: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.1%The Markup: 3.8%The Markup: 0.6%Unattributed Quote15.1%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 3.4%The Markup: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.0%The Markup: 12.9%The Markup: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice14.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%The Markup: 2.0%The Markup: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

430 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers48%attributed speech224writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageThe global data journalism contest • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageKlaxon • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThe Markup • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageThe Markup • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageNatasha Uzcátegui-Liggett • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThe Markup • 18 words • 0.0% coverageThe Markup • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageNieuwsuur • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nieuwsuur

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words15% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.8 ptsWriter: 26.8%Nieuwsuur: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-17.4 ptsWriter: 17.4%Nieuwsuur: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.