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.
Objectives: Aiming to reduce distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks by alerting the consciences of Internet users, this paper evaluates the effectiveness of four warning banners displayed as online ads (deterrent—control, social, informative, and reorienting) and the contents of their two linked landing pages. Methods: We implement a 4 x 2 quasi-experimental design on a self-selected sample of Internet users to measure the engagement generated by the ads and the pages. Engagement is measured on the ads as the ratio of clicks to impressions, and on the pages as percentage of page scrolled, average session duration, video interaction rate, and URLs click rate. Results: Social ads generate significantly more engagement than the rest with low to medium effect sizes. Data reveal no differences in engagement between both landing page designs. Conclusions: Social messages may be a better alternative for engaging with potential cyber offenders than the traditional deterrent messages. Correspondence: Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), De Boelelaan 1077, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: AMoneva@nscr.n This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Journal of Experimental Criminology. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-022-09504-2
MULTIFILE
At its core, raving has existed in opposition to normativity, and so has electronic music. If newcomers enticed by hard trance remixes of 2000’s Top 40 hits embrace this opposition, it is often done in ways removed from history. As Loren Granic AKA Goddollars, co-founder and resident of A Club Called Rhonda in Los Angeles, stated: “Many of the newcomers are straight/white kids who are very far removed from the LGBT community, despite fist-pumping by the millions to a music that was born from gay people of colour sweating their asses off at 5 AM in a Chicago warehouse.” If the role marginalized people have played in the creation and pioneering of their favourite music is ignored, how would people react when told that their fun might also harm marginalized groups? The ethics of lockdown raves have always been fraught, as their repercussions reverberate beyond the people who choose to attend them; meanwhile, data shows that people of colour were more likely to be targeted for attending raves during the lockdown.
LINK
