SHADOWBANNING: Big Data and Algorithms -2019

There is no doubt that the internet has drastically changed contemporary society by increasing global connection, increasing productivity, and increasing convenience for the majority of people around the world. On a surface level these all seem to be reasons to celebrate the internet, and they are, however the perceived positive impacts overshadows the bigger picture as the big player corporations who dominate the boundary-less space of the online world are rarely challenged in their processes. In 2015 Frank Pasquale wrote a book titled The Black Box Society which focused on the secret algorithms that he argues control most aspects of modern life, specifically money and information. He argued that “what we do and don’t know about the social (as opposed to the natural) world is not inherent in its nature, but is itself a function of social constructs” Pasquale, 2015, pg. 2). He is making the point here that there is an assumed objectivity of algorithms within the online sphere. He suggests here that all meaning has been constructed through a particular perspective, and that the internet is far from a free and equal, democratic space. The internet is a domain that tends to reflect the material world that we all occupy and vice versa. In a capitalist, patriarchal society that is vastly unequal, the reality of the online world reflects those same values; as exemplified by double standards and lack of consequences (for those who hold different forms of power) among other discrepancies that often go ignored.

Pasquale recognises the importance of power arguing that “knowledge is power..”  and that “to scrutinise others while avoiding scrutiny oneself is one of the most important forms of power” (Pasquale, 2015, pg. 3). We see this play out in the dynamics between tech corporations and the average citizen. As discussed in the chapter, the public are considered ‘open books’ and we voluntarily submit our personal data over to these corporations in order to make our lives easier. And while the convenience is easy to recognise within our daily lives on a personal level, the overall impact on our increasingly connected globalised world is harder to track. Big data platforms get to dictate their own ‘community guidelines’ and policies around the type of content that is allowed on different sites; in an almost invisible way they are shaping culture by defining what is and isn’t acceptable in the online (and subsequently offline) world. In an article going back to 2016, Quartz found that there were particular groups who were constantly targeted and censored online including: plus-sized women, mothers, women in general, sexual health organisations, indigenous groups, journalists (often those speaking out against particular political parties/entities), artists/museums/galleries (specifically those that included any sort of nudity), and LGBTQ groups and individuals (York, 2016). The continued policing of marginalised groups will be discussed in more detail below.

Due to the increasing reliance we all have on our digitised devices it is easy to ignore the invasion of privacy and the way in which these corporations have used algorithms and other forms of new technology to influence what we buy, where we go, or even who we vote for (The Great Hack, 2019). Influence over our everyday lives is slowly being overtaken by corporations than that of government as Pasquale argues “most major decision about our lives are made in the private sector, not by a state bureaucracy” (Pasquale, 2015, pg. 17). Given that many people fail to interrogate the intentions of these large corporations the assumption that they are public goods eclipses the reality that they are corporations that prioritise profit over anything else. In 2012 one of the richest tech men in the world Bill Gates spoke at a media summit stating that he felt he could probably have ‘as much’ of an impact on society from outside the political sphere than within it (CBS, 2012). In order to make change from a political standpoint you need consensus, either within your party or across the population. For someone like Bill Gates to make a change or have an impact he can use his large financial capital to make decisions under the guise of philanthropy. Another significant difference is the length of time you could potentially hold that influence, in politics there are restrictions on the terms you can spend in office, as a ‘philanthropist’ nobody is setting restrictions or an expiry for when you must stop contributing. Different forms of power are underestimated when it comes to the online world and while this example focuses on the economic capital that Bill Gates holds the internet also privileges other forms of capital including the social and the cultural.

The title of Pasquale’s book is a metaphor for the secrecy built into the algorithmic system. Algorithms used by corporations like Facebook and Google are predictive algorithms, which take an analytical approach to online data that are concealed within ‘black boxes’. Pasquale called them black boxes because we, the public, do not have access to the processes of these algorithms as they are protected by law and are labelled as ‘trade secrets’. Algorithms rely on existing data sets which it then analyses, recognising patterns which it then replicates to predict the future. Historically speaking, the ideology of humanism has prevailed which privileged the European white male as the default human to which all identities that fell outside of that default were considered as ‘other’ (Braidotti, 2013, pg. 15). So what does that mean for internet users today? It means that bias is built into the seemingly objective formulas which continue to replicate the status quo. A more recent book that also focuses on algorithms was written by Safiya Umoja Noble in 2018 titled ‘Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism’. Her interest in the topic stemmed from her own personal experience using the largest search engine Google. She describes her horror at the inequalities she saw online when using Google. There were significant differences in the results of black girl vs. white girl as well as the auto-fill suggestions that appeared once she began typing something into the search bar. As she utilised this ‘impartial’ tool, Noble noticed that sexism and racism (among other discriminating factors) were built into this search engine which is presented to the public as democratic and of providing truths. Consequentially, all those ‘non-default’ beings are disadvantaged through these invisible algorithms.

The biases built into the online institutions are no accident; the existing data that is fed into the algorithmic formulations is never neutral, it always comes from a particular perspective. This makes it extremely important to be aware of historical constructions of particular identities. In her book Noble argues that much of the data that exists around minorities generally perpetuate stereotypes or have negative connotations attached. Along with the auto-fill suggestions Noble raises an interesting point about the page ranking system that Google employ through their algorithmic calculations. Popularity of particular pages prioritises them over less frequented pages implying that pages with more visits somehow deserve to be viewed more than others. Noble points out that “if the majority rules in search engine results, then how might those who are in the minority ever be able to influence the way they are represented in a search engine” (Noble, 2018, pg. 6). The inherent flaws in this page ranking system goes largely ignored considering the embedded nature of Google in contemporary (western) society.

Throughout her book Noble also asks the reader to be mindful of the interests of these platforms and reminds us that these platforms are corporations with economic goals prioritised over ethical principles; “despite the widespread beliefs in the internet as a democratic space where people have the power to dynamically participate as equals, the internet is in fact organised to the benefit of powerful elites, including corporations that can afford to purchase and redirect searches to their own sites” (Noble, 2018, pg. 50). The ability to use economic power to influence page rankings is an obvious indicator of the lack of neutrality across multiple platforms and although accessibility of the internet is increasing, accessibility in and of itself does not create democracy. There is no doubt that there is increasing accessibility to the internet across the globe but that does not mean there is any increasing in democracy or equality. Noble suggests that “structural inequalities of society are being reproduced on the Internet, and the quest for a race-, gender-, and class-less cyberspace could only ‘perpetuate and reinforce current systems of domination’” (Noble, 2018, pg. 59). We must continue to challenge the motives of the dominant platforms and push for more transparency of their operations.

The increased reliance of the internet, especially in educational environments has meant that many people around the world must be engaged with particular platforms and services in order to participate. This directly impacts on the architecture of the internet and the next part of my presentation will be focusing on an issue known as shadowbanning. Many argue that the currency of social networks is human attention. According to The Economist a shadowban: “in theory, curtails the ways in which that attention may be earned without blocking a user’s ability to post new messages or carry out typical actions on a network. Shadowbanned users are not told that they have been affected… The only hint that such a thing is happening would be a dip in likes, favourites or retweets [in the case of twitter]– or an ally alerting them to their disappearance” (GF, 2018).

While shadowbanning occurs on a number of platforms, my focus will be on the photosharing app Instagram and their policing of queer, people of colour, women, sex workers, disabled bodies, plus size bodies and most identities falling outside of a cis-white-male body. When it comes to online nudity, Instagram’s policy appears to be straightforward. Their community guidelines state: “Photos of post mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed” however, “photos, videos, and some digitally-created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully nude buttocks” are not (Instagram, 2020). While this appears fairly clear cut, Instagram seem to have a murky grey area in which ‘sexually suggestive’ content and their creators often falls victim to the perils of being shadowbanned.

An independent and online newsletter/platform specifically for women, trans, and non-binary people called Salty describe their mission as

            “Legacy and mainstream media has failed women, trans and non-binary people. They assumed our straightness, our thinness, our frigidity and our fragility for far too long. They preyed on our insecurities in order to market products to us, and told us stories from one perspective, over and over again.

But Salty isn’t legacy media. We’re a radical new publishing platform with a mission to pass the mic to Salty babes across the world and amplify their voices. We’re fighting everyday to ensure the authentic stories of women, trans and non-binary people are not erased.”  Salty, 2020

Salty recently undertook their own research that looked at the ways that algorithms affect marginalised groups, coming to the conclusion that plus-size profiles were often flagged for ‘excessive nudity’ and ‘sexual solicitation’, and that queer people and women of colour are policed far more than their white counterparts. When images of fully-clothed plus-sized or black women are removed for being ‘inappropriate’, the platforms AI learns to adopt biases that reinforce misogyny and racism, creating barriers for certain groups in the digital realm. Again the irony becomes apparent that the assumption that social media is an equalising force in modern society but in reality actually serve to further suppress communities who are most often discriminated against. Salty concluded that risqué content featuring cis white women seems less censored than content featuring plus-sized, black, queer women- and cis white men appear to have a free pass to behave and post in any way they please, regardless of the harm they inflict. A clear example of this double standard is the presence of both PornHub and Brazzers on Instagram, two of the biggest pornography companies in the world, with their total amount of followers combined exceeding 18 million people. The illusion of freedom on the Internet only serves to benefit those already at the top of the social hierarchy; the marginalised who challenge these existing norms are constantly punished with no fair or due process. We as a global society must continue to push and challenge these corporations for more transparency if we realistically aim to eradicate different forms of discrimination in both the online and material worlds.


Braidotti, R, 2013, ‘Post-Humanism: Life beyond the Self’, in Posthuman, Polity Press, Oxford, pp. 13-54

BrazzersOfficial, 2020, <>

CBS, 2012, ‘Bill Gates Says He’ll Never Run For Office’, CBS News, 9 October 2012, viewed 30 March 2020, <>

GF, 2018, ‘What is “shadowbanning”?’, The Economist, 1 August, 2018, viewed 30 March 2020, <;

Instagram, 2020, ‘Community Guidelines’, <[0]=368390626577968&bc[1]=285881641526716>

Noble, SU, 2018, ‘A Society Searching’, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, New York University Press, New York, pp. 15-63

Pasquale, F, 2015, ‘Introduction: The Need to Know’, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information’, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1-18

PornHub, 2020, <>

Salty, 2020, ‘What We Stand For’, Salty, <;

The Great Hack, 2019 [Netflix], Jehane Noujaim & Karim Amer

York, J, 2016, ‘A Complete Guide To All The Things Facebook Censors Hate Most’, Quartz, June 29, 2016, viewed 30 March, 2020, <;

Censorship and Subjectivity: Identity Construction in Online Spaces-2019

The way in which we interact, consume and produce media has changed dramatically in the 21st century. The influence of the media in the way in which we construct our identities is dramatically changing, especially in the identity construction of young boys and girls. The rise of social media has created a new economy of the self, where ‘likes have become the new metric for evaluating self-worth’, particularly in adolescents. Within the discourse surrounding social media use, it is often young women who are criticised for the way in which they are choosing to (re)present themselves in online spaces. The way in which we all curate our public selves is part of this new economy of the self, however there is clearly a difference in the representation and policing of content between the genders. Within a patriarchal capitalist society, the female body has been objectified and commodified in order to sell anything from make-up and clothes, to burgers, booze and even vegetarianism.

The prevalence of social media and the permeation into everyday life is challenging the status quo of image production, which has historically been dominated by the male gaze stemming from the patriarchal perspective. Social media is reinterpreting the user as both subject and object simultaneously, and female ‘artistis’/users are attempting to take back agency and autonomy of their bodies through digitised virtual spaces. From the perspective of Braidotti, this is an example of “a new form of materialism that emphasized the embodied and therefore sexually differentiated structure of the speaking subject” (Braidotti cited in Echavarria Alvarez, 2008, pg. 23). Rather than woman as ‘Other’, social media is a way for women to explore their own subjectivity presenting themselves in an individualised way that takes into account different cultural intersections. Not just women, but other minorities are able to have a voice in the way that they are constructed online. Braidotti discusses her anti-humanist understanding of human subjectivity as a rejection of the Eurocentric, male ‘default’ understanding of humanity. Modern image construction takes a literal form in the online world and may be seen as a departure away from phallogocentric definitions of ‘Woman as Other’. Braidotti reflecting on the work of Irigaray, discusses the unrepresentability of women stemming from the colonisation of the feminine by the male imaginary. This male-centred understanding of ‘woman’ has shaped the modern social world and many social and cultural norms are reflected in the community guidelines of social media platforms. The following part of the essay will look specifically at the platform Instagram, and the sexist contradictions present within their terms of use.

Gendered double standards that exist within our society are especially obvious when looking at acceptable sexual behaviour among the genders in adolescents. The concepts of both boyhood and girlhood are modern concepts that carry different meaning in today’s understanding of ‘the self’. In the wake of ‘post-feminism’ neoliberal ideas push for a more individual responsibility of the self, in which girls are held more accountable for their actions and ‘being’ than that of boys. The use of social media is a new way for young people to explore different identities, while also being exposed to different forms of self-expression from a range of different contexts. Instagram is the most popular photo-sharing app in the world with over 1 billion users currently registered around the world (Carman, 2018). Their Community Guidelines in respect to nudity and sexuality states:
We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we don’t allow nudity on Instagram. This includes photos, videos, and some digitally created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully-nude buttocks. It also includes some photos of female nipples but photos of post mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed. Nudity in photos of painting and sculptures are ok
(Instagram, 2019)

The censorship of female bodies is much more prevalent than that of male bodies, and the nipple exemplifies this perfect. The way in which the female body is commodified for public marketing and consumption is telling of the control that men seek over women in order to assert their masculinity. When looking at the images and messaged from society in regards to the female body the nipple is always censored, not the whole breast, but the nipple. The female nipple is no different than the male nipple, so we can see that it is not the nipple itself that is offensive. Unlike the male nipple, the female nipple actually serves a function and helps facilitate life, yet it is still removed from online spaces. Biased censorship of women’s body’s teaches girls that they are sexual beings; that regardless of the artist/users own perspective; female nipples are sexual and may never be seen outside of a sexual context. This gendered censorship is sending different messages to young boys and young girls; girls will learn that their bodies are shameful and sexual while boy’s bodies are invisible in the conversation. Women are experiencing censorship in the online world which is impacting how they are in the real world. Social media is like a double edged sword when it comes to the critical response to patriarchal world views; on one hand social media is opening up to different interpretations of femininity, embodiment, gender and self-identity to anyone who has access to a smart device and the internet, and on the other it is a space in which power is exercised through censorship ensuring women conform to the gender role assigned to their physical body; a sexual being.


Braidotti, R, 2013, ‘Post-Humanism: Life beyond the Self’, in The Posthuman, pp13-54, Cambridge; Polity Press

Braidotti, R, 2003, ‘Becoming Woman: Or Sexual Difference Revisited’, Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 43-64

Carman, A, 2018, ‘Instagram now has 1 billion users worldwide’, The Verge, 20 June 2018, viewed online 17 June 2019,

Echavarria Alvarez, J, 2008, ‘Telling Different Stories: Subjectivity and Feminist Identity Politics’, The Virtual Peace Library of the UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies, viewed online 18 June 2019,

Instagram, 2019, Instagram Help Centre, Instagram, viewed 14 June 2019, <;

Online Female Censorship: An Exploration of Subjectivity 2019

The rise of the internet has brought about a number of changes to our society and the way in which we interact and make meaning of ourselves and each other, however the virtual world is not a neutral equal space. With over half the world’s population having access to the internet there are a number of ways this global tool is being controlled by different entities including governments and transnational corporations (Why Do Some Countries Censor the Internet, 2019). While there are a number of authoritarian governments who censor their states internet use for political purposes this essay will be analysing the censorship of the female body and sexuality which I argue seeks to uphold the patriarchal values in which women are subordinated by men. I will begin with a brief history of censorship and Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power, then the essay will move to a focus on the social media platform Instagram and the censorship on women’s body’s and bodily functions. Linking back to Foucault and disciplinary power, Althusser’s theory on ideology and ideological (state) apparatuses will also be discussed in relation to the way in which we have come to use and understand social media. Two specific forms of censorship will be analysed throughout; female nipples and menstruation blood. The end of the essay will bring these discussions together from the perspective of de Beuvoir.

The idea of censorship is not a new or modern concept; throughout history different forms of censorship have played a crucial role in upholding social and moral codes. The term censor originates back to ancient Greek times where the ideology of good governance was promoted through censorship of the community in the name of the good of the public (Newth, 2010). Although censorship originated in Europe, different forms of censorship have been found to be employed in different parts of the world across different times highlighting the importance of context. Prior to the rise of the internet, censorship of information was a lot more concentrated, with the State holding power to regulate what is acceptable and allowable using morality for grounds of censorship. The dominance of the internet beginning at the start of the 21st century brought about a number of hurdles in regards to censoring accessible public content. Given the immaterial nature of the internet; the transcendence across national borders; and the level of accessibility to its users, censorship of the internet remains a delicate topic with the power to regulate often falling outside of State powers and more commonly in the hands of private enterprises. Although some media corporations may serve as sovereign powers, the transnational nature of them makes it difficult to enforce their rules and regulations. The shift away from this sovereign power in the 21st century is what Foucault would argue as disciplinary power;
It is a type of power which is constantly exercised by means of surveillance rather than in a discontinuous manner by means of a system of levies or obligations distributed over time. It presupposes a tightly knit grid of material coercions rather than the physical existence of a sovereign.. This non-sovereign power, which lies outside the form of sovereignty, is disciplinary power
–Foucault (cited in Boyle, 1997, pg. 177)
Foucault used the example of Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’ structure to elucidate his theory of disciplinary power. He argued that the central figure within the panopticon formation was hidden and the threat of being seen by this authoritive figure was enough for the subjects to self-regulate and abide by the rules. From this perspective we can see that the panopticon is an individualising and totalising form of power. The internet as a domain however, operates remarkably different to that of our material society, which is why many theorists towards the end of the 20th century believed that the internet would be “immune from (state) regulation” (Boyle, 1997, pg. 178), more so due to the fact that it would be extremely difficult to do, rather than an unwillingness to do so. If we view the internet, or more specifically social media, as panoptic models all users agree to participate in this Big Brother type surveillance, as you must agree to the company’s terms and conditions while creating your access profile. Once ‘inside’ the panopticon individuals self-regulate and enforce their own oppression onto themselves often conforming to the hegemony of the system in the process. Given the nature of social media, the way in which subjects are able to (re)produce themselves to the world is highly curated and the awareness of the audience is always considered. While social media company’s outline their own specific ‘community guidelines’ in regards to what is deemed appropriate, the images deemed acceptable are still dictated by social norms rather than a specific legislation or law.

The following part of the essay will focus specifically on the social media site Instagram which is an image and video sharing social networking website with over 1 billion users worldwide (Carman, 2018). Instagram claims their aim is to have “a world more connected through photos” (Instagram, 2019), however many of their ‘terms of service’ contradict this and I will be focusing specifically on the gendered bias Instagram employs in order to control and mediate user’s content. Although users may post any type of image to their feed such as art, landscapes etc, the majority of images on the site are photos of people, many of which are ‘selfies’. This ‘self-imaging’ technique in which the user is posting themselves is particular to social media in that the user or artist is both subject and object, directly challenging “our conceived social order of image production” (Faust, 2017, pg. 160) within our patriarchal visual based culture. Female artists are especially challenging the order in regards to the image production veering away from the domination of the male gaze and into the hands of historically-written marginalised people.

The community guidelines of the online platform Instagram states a number of rules that their members must adhere to in order to freely use the media. The following statement is the description under the rule “Post photos and videos that are appropriate for a diverse audience”:
We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we don’t allow nudity on Instagram. This includes photos, videos, and some digitally created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully-nude buttocks. It also includes some photos of female nipples but photos of post mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed. Nudity in photos of painting and sculptures are ok
-Instagram, 2019
Although the terms ‘nudity’ and ‘sexual’ appear to be self-explanatory terms, the definition of what actually constitutes as nudity and/or sexual content is highly contested in the online world. The community guidelines outlined by Instagram are representative of social and political norms within our society and upon closer inspection the sexism inherent in these guidelines becomes apparent. Both real world and online nudity are understood differently between the genders and the nipple exemplifies this perfectly. While cultural norms of what is deemed appropriate/inappropriate parts of the body to be shown in public evolve and change over time, the restriction of the female nipple has persisted till today. The notion that the nipple is too sexual to be seen is highly contradictory, especially given the fact that it is the only part of the breast that must be censored. We do not have the same censorship on the male body and even though the female nipple serves a bodily function (unlike the male nipple) the female nipple in online spaces is automatically seen as sexual and therefore prohibited. By hiding the female nipple specifically, society is telling women that their breasts are sexual and may only be seen from that perspective. The gendered bias teaches young women that they must police their bodies, in a way that men do not, and that we must hide parts of our body to ensure we do not arouse the opposite sex. The way in which women subjugate and oppress themselves; both in the real world and online, is an example of biopower in play. The purpose of biopower, according to Foucault, is “to optimize the life of the population as a whole” (Inda, 2005, pg. 5). He also suggests that the use of biopower is a positive force of power, rather than the classic understanding of punishment enforced negative power. The Panopticon concept employs this biopower and subjects are left to self-regulate on their own accord. Within a capitalist, patriarchal society where men hold all the power and economics hold privilege over everything, biopower represents the ideologies of men, and the reproduction of labour power is enforced through social norms. This includes pushing heteronormative ideologies in which women exist for the consumption of men.

Women have learnt through media, family, and educational institutions the correct way to carry and dress their bodies in order to conform to the expectations of society. According to Althusser these institutions function ‘by ideology’ rather than through physical violence enforced from above. It is the production of scientific knowledge functioning through ‘knowledge and desire’ which dictate our societal norms to which we all unconsciously agree to conform to (Pylypa, 1998, pg. 21). In line with Foucault’s concept of biopower, Althusser’s theory on Ideological State apparatuses function positively (through ideology) as opposed to the Repressive State apparatuses which function through violence. In other words, Althusser understood subjects to be confined to specific ideologies of existence, constrained and interpellated into our own existence within society. While this theory relies on the existence of the imaginary, Althusser does clarify the existence of materiality within this concept. He argues that
the ideology of ideology thus recognizes, despite its imaginary distortion, that the ‘ideas’ of a human subject exist in his actions, or ought to exist in his actions, and if that is not the case, it lends him other ideas corresponding to the action (however perverse) that he does perform” (Althusser, 1971, pg. 103)
In the context of social media, what we present online is how we ‘perform’ and our ideas are only being realised in the way in which we present ourselves to the world; it disregards all that has not been posted online.

In 2015, Canadian poet and artist Rupi Kaur posted an image of a fully clothed woman laying in bed on Instagram. In the image the woman is laying on her side with menstruation blood both on her pants and the bed. The image was quickly removed due breaching the ‘community guidelines’ even though there was no nudity or sexual connotations present in the image. But instead of accepting the removal, Rupi and her (thousands of) followers fought back, making a public statement directed at Instagram:
I will not apologise for not feeding the ego and pride of misogynist society that will have my body in an underwear but not be ok with a small leak when your pages are filled with countless photos/accounts where women (so many who are underage) are objectified, pornified, and treated less than human” (Kaur cited in Sanghani, 2015)
Instagram eventually restored then deleted, and once again restored the image to Rupi’s account and asserted that the removal was ‘an accident’ (Livingstone-Lang, 2016, pg. 17). This particular incident sparked a global discussion around menstruation and made it very apparent that menstruation blood still induces disgust in many people with some comments going as far as “being a woman is honestly disgusting.. I would do anything to kms [kill myself]” (cited in Livingstone-Lang, 2016, pg. 17). While this comment was quite extreme, many people were outraged and disgusted at the sight of a normal (yet unseen) bodily fluid in a normal bodily process. The notion of disgust is linked to abjection; “the human reaction (horror, vomit) to a threatened breakdown in meaning caused by the loss of the distinction between subject and object or between self and other” (Kristeva cited in Smith, 2017). As well as this breakdown of understanding, the abject is something that disrespects borders, rules and positions. Menstrual blood on social media provoking this sort of outrage is hardly surprising when we still treat the act of monthly bleeding as a taboo topic. Douglas suggests that taboos are important in regards to social control, much like Foucault’s ideas about disciplinary power; taboos seek to control the behaviour of the population by socially out-casting those who do not conform, rather than punishment coming from a sovereign power (Douglas, 1984). The continuation of menstruation as taboo is hardly going to be changing when the leading photo-sharing platform is censoring these sorts of images.

In the 1940’s Simone de Beauvoir wrote an influential book called The Second Sex. In it she outlines how throughout history patriarchal rule has resulted in man having been deemed the default of humans, sidelining women as ‘the other’. She discusses how this patriarchal notion has shaped gender roles and understanding of what it means to be ‘man’ or ‘woman’. Given that man is the default, de Beauvoir argues that due to this dynamic, women can only ever position themselves in opposition to the Subject (man), and the way in which she produces her femininity is key to being accepted by society. Although de Beauvoir was writing in the 1940’s, unfortunately not much has changed. Women are still seen from the male gaze, and are expected to conform to a certain level of femininity, which includes the understanding that their bodies are sexual and are for the consumption of men. In 2019, this is very much still the case. Women are expected to be sexual beings and must conform to that should they wish to avoid being socially outcast or denied access to participate in particular online spaces such as Instagram. Both the female nipple and menstruation blood highlight the extra scrutiny women face in today’s society, especially in regards to the way in which they present their bodies, both in the real world and online spaces.

Within the social media realm, especially Instagram, the gender bias that exists is so pervasive of our current society, people often are not even aware of the sexism we all agree to participate in when clicking ‘I agree’ to the terms and conditions of the site. It is interesting to note that violence within society these days is generally accepted and normalised more so than sexuality and nudity. While Instagram is explicit in outlining that sexual content will not be tolerated, which as I have argued is extremely sexist, the presence of violence on the platform is generally allowed. The community guidelines do state: “Because so many different people and age groups use Instagram, we may remove videos of intense, graphic violence to make sure Instagram stays appropriate for everyone” (Instagram, 2019). I fail to recognise how a female nipple in a non-sexualised context, or some blood on the pants of a girl laying in bed could be more offensive than the glorification of weapons and violence, but that just highlights how much further we have to go before we are rid of gendered understandings of the role that men and women play in society.


Althusser, L, 1971, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)’, From Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, London and New York, Monthly Review Press, pp. 127-186

Boyle, J, 1997, ‘Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hardwired Censors’, University of Cincinnati Law Review, pp. 177-205

Carman, A, 2018, ‘Instagram now has 1 billion users worldwide’, The Verge, 20 June 2018, viewed online 14 June 2019, <;

Douglas, M, 1984, Purity and Danger, Routeledge, UK
Foucault, M, 2008, ‘”Panopticism” from discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison’, Race/Ethnicity, Vol. 2, No. 1

Instagram, 2019, Instagram Help Centre, Instagram, viewed 14 June 2019, <;

Livingstone-Lang, R, 2016, ‘Our Bloody Bodies, Ourselves: The Shocking and Playful Resurgence of Menstrual Art’, Broken Pencil, Fall 2016

Newth, M, 2010, ‘The Long History of Censorship’, Beacon for Freedom of Expression, viewed 13 June 2019, <;

Pylypa, J, 1998, ‘Power and Bodiloy Practice: Applying the Work of Foucault to an Anthropology of the Body’, Arizona Anthropology, No. 13, pp. 21-36

Sanghani, R, 2015, ‘Instagram deletes woman’s period photos- but her response is amazing’, The Telegraph UK, 30 March 2015, viewed 14 June 2019 <;

Smith, S, 2017, Julia Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection”, 10 November 2017, viewed 14 June 2019, <;

‘Why Do Some Countries Censor the Internet’, 2019, Open Access Government, Febuary 5 2019, viewed 13 June 2019 <;