Aim: There is often a gap between the ideal of involving older persons iteratively throughout the design process of digital technology, and actual practice. Until now, the lens of ageism has not been applied to address this gap. The goals of this study were: to voice the perspectives and experiences of older persons who participated in co-designing regarding the design process; their perceived role in co-designing and intergenerational interaction with the designers; and apparent manifestations of ageism that potentially influence the design of digital technology. Methods: Twenty-one older persons participated in three focus groups. Five themes were identified using thematic analysis which combined a critical ageism ‘lens’ deductive approach and an inductive approach. Results: Ageism was experienced by participants in their daily lives and interactions with the designers during the design process. Negative images of ageing were pointed out as a potential influencing factor on design decisions. Nevertheless, positive experiences of inclusive design pointed out the importance of “partnership” in the design process. Participants defined the “ultimate partnership” in co-designing as processes in which they were involved from the beginning, iteratively, in a participatory approach. Such processes were perceived as leading to successful design outcomes, which they would like to use, and reduced intergenerational tension. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential role of ageism as a detrimental factor in how digital technologies are designed. Viewing older persons as partners in co-designing and aspiring to more inclusive design processes may promote designing technologies that are needed, wanted and used.
Content moderation is commonly used by social media platforms to curb the spread of hateful content. Yet, little is known about how users perceive this practice and which factors may influence their perceptions. Publicly denouncing content moderation—for example, portraying it as a limitation to free speech or as a form of political targeting—may play an important role in this context. Evaluations of moderation may also depend on interpersonal mechanisms triggered by perceived user characteristics. In this study, we disentangle these different factors by examining how the gender, perceived similarity, and social influence of a user publicly complaining about a content-removal decision influence evaluations of moderation. In an experiment (n = 1,586) conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, and Portugal, participants witnessed the moderation of a hateful post, followed by a publicly posted complaint about moderation by the affected user. Evaluations of the fairness, legitimacy, and bias of the moderation decision were measured, as well as perceived similarity and social influence as mediators. The results indicate that arguments about freedom of speech significantly lower the perceived fairness of content moderation. Factors such as social influence of the moderated user impacted outcomes differently depending on the moderated user’s gender. We discuss implications of these findings for content-moderation practices.
