skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Youth Trust in Social Media Companies and Expectations of Justice: Accountability and Repair After Online Harassment

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Social media platforms aspire to deliver fair resolutions after online harassment. Platforms rely on sanctions like removing content or banning users but these punitive responses provide little opportunity for justice or reparation for targets of harassment. This may be especially important for youth, who experience pervasive harassment which can have uniquely harmful effects on their wellbeing. We conducted a text-message based survey with 832 U.S. adolescents and young adults, ages 14-24, to explore their attitudes towards social media companies' responses to online harassment. We find that youth are twice as likely (41% versus 20%) not to trust social media companies' ability to achieve a fair resolution as they are to trust them. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of youth expressed a preference for an apology from the offender after online harassment, and they were twice as likely to prefer a private apology to a public one (29% versus 14%). Preferences also vary by identity, revealing how a one-size-fits-all approach can harm some youth while benefitting others. We reflect on the opportunities and risks associated with institutional trust and restorative justice for supporting youth who experience online harassment.

References

  1. Asad, M. 2019. Prefigurative Design as a Method for Research Justice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 200:1--200:18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bailey, P.E., Slessor, G., Rieger, M., Rendell, P.G., Moustafa, A.A. and Ruffman, T. 2015. Trust and trustworthiness in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 30, 4 (2015), 977--986. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039736.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Barth, S. and de Jong, M.D.T. 2017. The privacy paradox -- Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -- A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics. 34, 7 (Nov. 2017), 1038--1058. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Battistella, E.L. 2014. Sorry about that: The Language of Public Apology. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford, B., Grisel, F., Meares, T.L., Owens, E., Pineda, B.L., Shapiro, J., Tyler, T.R. and Peterman, D.E. 2019. Report Of The Facebook Data Transparency Advisory Group. Yale Justice Collaboratory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, J. 1999. Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts. Crime and Justice. 25, (Jan. 1999), 1--127. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/449287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brestan, E.V. and Eyberg, S.M. Effective psychosocial treatments of conduct-disordered children and adolescents: 29 years, 82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 27, 180--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Carstensen, L.L., Fung, H.H. and Charles, S.T. 2003. Socioemotional Selectivity Theory and the Regulation of Emotion in the Second Half of Life. Motivation and Emotion. 27, 2 (Jun. 2003), 103--123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569803230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Chandrasekharan, E., Samory, M., Srinivasan, A. and Gilbert, E. 2017. The Bag of Communities: Identifying Abusive Behavior Online with Preexisting Internet Data. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 3175--3187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Choi, J.J., Bazemore, G. and Gilbert, M.J. 2012. Review of research on victims' experiences in restorative justice: Implications for youth justice. Children and Youth Services Review. 34, 1 (Jan. 2012), 35--42. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Citron, D.K. 2014. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Cohen, N. 2019. Zuckerberg Wants Facebook to Build a Mind-Reading Machine. Wired.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and LePine, J.A. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92, 4 (2007), 909--927. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Daly, K. and Tifft, L. 2007. The Limits of Restorative Justice. Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. DeJonckheere, M., Nichols, L.P., Moniz, M.H., Sonneville, K.R., Vydiswaran, V.V., Zhao, X., Guetterman, T.C. and Chang, T. 2017. MyVoice National Text Message Survey of Youth Aged 14 to 24 Years: Study Protocol. JMIR Research Protocols. 6, 12 (2017), e247. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Doherty, C., Kiley, J. and Inquiries, D. 20036USA202-419-4300 | M.-857-8562 | F.-419--4372 | M. Americans have become much less positive about tech companies' impact on the U.S. Pew Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Duggan, M. 2017. Online Harassment 2017. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Facebook forms a special ethics team to prevent bias in its A.I. software: 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/03/facebook-ethics-team-prevents-bias-in-ai-software.html. Accessed: 2020-08-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Facebook's algorithm bias only as neutral as their creators: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/16/facebooks-algorithm-bias-only-as-neutral-as-their-/. Accessed: 2016-09-19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman, B., Khan, P.H. and Howe, D.C. 2000. Trust online. Communications of the ACM. 43, 12 (Dec. 2000), 34--40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/355112.355120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gillespie, T. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberg, C. 2019. Nobody's Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls. Penguin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Graycar, A. and Grabosky, P. 2002. The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, C., Sprott, J.B., Madon, N.S. and Jung, M. 2010. Punishing Processes in Youth Court: Procedural Justice, Court Atmosphere and Youths' Views of the Legitimacy of the Justice System1. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. (Oct. 2010). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.52.5.527.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Growing to Trust: Evidence That Trust Increases and Sustains Well-Being Across the Life Span - Michael J. Poulin, Claudia M. Haase, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. and Zingales, L. 2004. The Role of Social Capital in Financial Development. American Economic Review. 94, 3 (Jun. 2004), 526--556. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Haimson, O.L. and Hoffmann, A.L. 2016. Constructing and enforcing "authentic" identity online: Facebook, real names, and non-normative identities. First Monday. 21, 6 (Jun. 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i6.6791.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Hand, C.A., Hankes, J. and House, T. 2012. Restorative justice: the indigenous justice system. Contemporary Justice Review. 15, 4 (Dec. 2012), 449--467. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2012.734576.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes, H. 2006. Apologies and Accounts in Youth Justice Conferencing: Reinterpreting Research Outcomes. Contemporary Justice Review. 9, 4 (Dec. 2006), 369--385. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580601014292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hinds, L. 2007. Building Police-Youth Relationships: The Importance of Procedural Justice. Youth Justice. 7, 3 (Dec. 2007), 195--209. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225407082510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Hoffmann, A.L. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society. 22, 7 (Jun. 2019), 900--915. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Hosseini, H., Kannan, S., Zhang, B. and Poovendran, R. 2017. Deceiving Google's Perspective API Built for Detecting Toxic Comments. arXiv:1702.08138 [cs]. (Feb. 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Iyengar, V., Ghosh, D., Smith, T. and Krueger, and F. 2019. Age-Related Changes in Interpersonal Trust Behavior: Can Neuroscience Inform Public Policy? NAM Perspectives. (Jul. 2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.31478/201906c.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Jhaver, S., Bruckman, A. and Gilbert, E. 2019. Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?: User Behavior After Content Removal Explanations on Reddit. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. CSCW, 2 (Nov. 2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaba, M. and Duda, J. 2018. Towards the horizon of abolition: A conversation with Mariame Kaba.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Kupchik, A. 2016. The Real School Safety Problem: The Long-Term Consequences of Harsh School Punishment. Univ of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Laloggia, J. and Inquiries 2019. U.S. public has little confidence in social media companies to determine offensive content. Pew Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lang, F.R. and Carstensen, L.L. 2002. Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social relationships. Psychology and Aging. 17, 1 (2002), 125--139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0882--7974.17.1.125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Levenson, J. 2017. Trauma-informed social work practice. Social Work. 62, 2 (2017), 105--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Madden, M. Teens Haven't Abandoned Facebook (Yet). Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mann, L., Harmoni, R. and Power, C. 1989. Adolescent decision-making: the development of competence. Journal of Adolescence. 12, 3 (Sep. 1989), 265--278. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1971(89)90077-8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. McCaslin, W.D. 2013. Justice As Healing: Indigenous Ways. Living Justice Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S. and Forte, A. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '19) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Melton, A.P. 1995. Indigenous Justice Systems and Tribal Society Indian Tribal Courts and Justice: A Symposium. Judicature. 79, (1996 1995), 126--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyer, J.F. 1998. History Repeats itself: Restorative Justice in Native American Communities. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 14, 1 (Feb. 1998), 42--57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986298014001004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Mingus, M. 2019. The Four Parts of Accountability: How To Give A Genuine Apology Part 1. Leaving Evidence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Murphy, K. 2015. Does procedural justice matter to youth? Comparing adults' and youths' willingness to collaborate with police. Policing and Society. 25, 1 (Jan. 2015), 53--76. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.802786.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Opinion | Could Restorative Justice Fix the Internet? - The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/opinion/internet-harassment-restorative-justice.html. Accessed: 2021-01-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Penner, E.K., Viljoen, J.L., Douglas, K.S. and Roesch, R. 2014. Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior. 38, 3 (2014), 225--237. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000055.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Pharo, H., Sim, C., Graham, M., Gross, J. and Hayne, H. 2011. Risky business: Executive function, personality, and reckless behavior during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Behavioral Neuroscience. 125, 6 (2011), 970--978. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025768.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Phillips, W. 2015. This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Prevent Cyberbullying: 2012. https://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/prevention/index.html. Accessed: 2019-08-23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Rainie, L., Anderson, J. and Albright, J. 2017. The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Rainie, L., Keeter, S. and Perrin, A. 2019. Americans' Trust in Government, Each Other, Leaders. Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Raja, S., Hasnain, M., Hoersch, M., Gove-Yin, S. and Rajagopalan, C. 2015. Trauma Informed Care in Medicine. Family & Community Health. 38, 3 (Jul. 2015), 216--226. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000071.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. ReCal for Ordinal, Interval, and Ratio Data (OIR) - dfreelon.org: http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal-oir. Accessed: 2020-05-18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Regehr, C. and Gutheil, T. 2002. Apology, justice, and trauma recovery. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 30, 3 (2002), 425--430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Richardson, A., Allen, J.A., Xiao, H. and Vallone, D. 2012. Effects of Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status on Health Information-Seeking, Confidence, and Trust. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 23, 4 (Oct. 2012), 1477--1493. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2012.0181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Roberts, S.T. 2019. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Ronson, J. 2016. So You've Been Publicly Shamed. Penguin Publishing Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Rossner, M. 2013. Just emotions: rituals of restorative justice. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Hasinoff, A., Gibson, A.N., and Salehi, N. 2020. The promise of restorative justice in addressing online harm. Brookings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Scheuerman, M.K., Branham, S.M. and Hamidi, F. 2018. Safe Spaces and Safe Places: Unpacking Technology-Mediated Experiences of Safety and Harm with Transgender People. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 155:1--155:27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Schoenebeck, S., Haimson, O. and Nakamura, L. 2020. Drawing from justice theories to support targets of online harassment. New Media & Society. (Mar. 2020), 1461444820913122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820913122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Seering, J. 2020. Reconsidering Self-Moderation: the Role of Research in Supporting Community-Based Models for Online Content Moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 107:1--107:28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3415178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Smith, A. 2018. How Americans View Tech Companies. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Social Media Collective 2011. ?If you don't like it, don't use it. It's that simple." ORLY? Social Media Collective.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T.R. 2003. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review. 37, 3 (2003), 513--548. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3703002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Suzor, N.P., West, S.M., Quodling, A. and York, J. 2019. What Do We Mean When We Talk About Transparency? Toward Meaningful Transparency in Commercial Content Moderation. International Journal of Communication. 13, 0 (Mar. 2019), 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. This is how much Americans trust Facebook, Google, Apple, and other big tech companies: 2020. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey-2020-trust-privacy-security-facebook-amazon-google-apple. Accessed: 2020-05-18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Thomas, D.R. 2006. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation. 27, 2 (Jun. 2006), 237--246. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Tyler, T.R. 1988. What Is Procedural Justice - Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures. Law & Society Review. 22, (1988), 103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. United States Population Growth by Region: https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=growth. Accessed: 2020-05-19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Upton-Clark, E. A Brief History of Pranks as Political Activism. Teen Vogue.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219. Accessed: 2020-05-19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G., Feather, N.T. and Platow, M.J. 2008. Retributive and Restorative Justice. Law and Human Behavior. 32, 5 (Oct. 2008), 375--389. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. What is Trauma-Informed Care? http://socialwork.buffalo.edu/social-research/institutes-centers/institute-on-trauma-and-trauma-informed-care/what-is-trauma-informed-care.html. Accessed: 2020-05-21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. When It Comes to Abolition, Accountability Is a Gift: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/mariame-kaba-josie-duffy-rice-rethinking-accountability-abolition. Accessed: 2021-01-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Wohn, D.Y. 2019. Volunteer Moderators in Twitch Micro Communities: How They Get Involved, the Roles They Play, and the Emotional Labor They Experience. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2019), 160:1-160:13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Wulczyn, E., Thain, N. and Dixon, L. 2017. Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web (Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 2017), 1391--1399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Younger Americans less trusting of other people, institutions | Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/06/young-americans-are-less-trusting-of-other-people-and-key-institutions-than-their-elders/. Accessed: 2020-05-18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Youth Trust in Social Media Companies and Expectations of Justice: Accountability and Repair After Online Harassment

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 5, Issue CSCW1
      CSCW
      April 2021
      5016 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3460939
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 April 2021
      Published in pacmhci Volume 5, Issue CSCW1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader