Introduction

As social media platforms continue to expand their influence across geographies, the governance of harmful content has become increasingly complex. Platforms are no longer just spaces for social interaction—they are arenas where sensitive political, cultural, and societal tensions unfold, varying widely by region. This complexity raises a critical question: Should platforms govern content with one global set of rules, or adapt their guidelines based on local laws and cultural nuances?

In this report, we address that question by exploring the concept of contextualization in community guidelines—a relatively underexplored area in platform governance. We also propose that there could be two approaches for content regulation through community guidelines—contextualization & standardization. We look into existing community guidelines and compare global platforms like Meta with regional platforms such as ShareChat, Chingari (India), and Kumu (Philippines) to assess the extent of contextualization.

What You Will Find in the Report

• A working definition of contextualization and standardization in community guidelines and an understanding of why contextualization matters at all.
• A dual-lens framework to assess contextualization:
  1. Jurisdiction & Socio-Cultural Background
  2. Platform Type
• Platform-wise analysis using 17 detailed indicators under the above framework.
• Comparative insights across four platforms—Meta, ShareChat, Chingari, and Kumu and answers to whether these platforms are more contextualized or standardized to specific settings.
• Recommendations on how platforms can better tailor their content moderation practices to legal, cultural, and functional needs.

Our Insights at a Glance

• ShareChat shows the highest contextualization by integrating Indian legal references, socio-cultural sensitivities, and platform-specific risks (e.g., fake profiles, caste-based discrimination).
• Chingari is moderately contextual, addressing regional issues and platform-specific harms but lacking detailed enforcement frameworks.
• Kumu contextualizes content through cultural and language adaptations but is less explicit about legal procedures or moderation strategies.
• Meta largely follows a standardized model but shows limited contextual elements like compliance with local laws and IP protection tools.

Conclusion and Way Forward

• Local platforms like ShareChat and Kumu demonstrate higher adaptability to socio-cultural and legal contexts, whereas global platforms like Meta prioritize uniformity.
• A one-size-fits-all approach to content moderation is inadequate in addressing jurisdiction and platform specific risks.
• The study recommends a strategy where there is enough focus on contextualization while having some global consistency. Localized responsiveness will help improve content safety, user trust, and regulatory alignment. In short, global rules work best when they speak the local language.