skip to main content
10.1145/3584931.3608927acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Conceptualizing and Improving Creator Moderation Design with Platform Stakeholders

Published:14 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

My doctoral research aims to conceptualize and improve creator moderation design based on (1) content creators’ voice and (2) multiple platform stakeholders’ collaboration. Four of our previous publications in the CSCW conferences have uncovered the socioeconomic impacts of moderation on creators, as well as the fairness and bureaucracy challenges they undertake, implicating the transparency design requirements for addressing these challenges. Two of proposed future studies will pivot into evaluating and refining creator moderation design with different platform stakeholders. First, I will explore how audiences and creators recognize creator moderation's compatibility with platform ecosystem (e.g., monetization, recommendation algorithms). Second, I will organize participatory design workshops with stakeholders such as creators, commercial moderators, and audiences to redesign creator moderation to balance different stakeholders’ stakes and platform's top-down moderation efforts. My dissertation aims to contribute to HCI and CSCW fields through the notion of creator moderation and comprehensive design and policy solutions for a safe and sustaining platform ecosystem.

References

  1. Julia Alexander. 2019. YouTube moderation bots punish videos tagged as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian,’ study finds. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/30/20887614/youtube-moderation-lgbtq-demonetization-terms-words-nerd-city-investigationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Julia Alexander. 2019. LGBTQ YouTubers are suing YouTube over alleged discrimination. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/14/20805283/lgbtq-youtuber-lawsuit-discrimination-alleged-video-recommendations-demonetizationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2018. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc 20, 3 (March 2018), 973–989. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sophie Bishop. 2019. Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media Soc 21, 11–12 (November 2019), 2589–2606. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854731Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Robyn Caplan and Tarleton Gillespie. 2020. Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy. Soc Media Soc 6, 2 (2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120936636Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Evelyn Douek. 2021. The limits of international law in content moderation. UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 6, (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gary Drenik. 2022. The Creator Economy Is Booming. Here's How Businesses Can Tap Into Its Potential. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/garydrenik/2022/08/23/the-creator-economy-is-booming-heres-how-businesses-can-tap-into-its-potential/?sh=305e02713d27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooke Erin Duffy, Urszula Pruchniewska, and Leah Scolere. 2017. Platform-specific self-branding: Imagined affordances of the social media ecology. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series Part F1296, (July 2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097291Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jenny Fan and Amy X. Zhang. 2020. Digital Juries: A Civics-Oriented Approach to Platform Governance. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (CHI 2020), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376293Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jessica L. Feuston, Alex S. Taylor, and Anne Marie Piper. 2020. Conformity of Eating Disorders through Content Moderation. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 4, CSCW1 (May 2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3392845Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Werner Geyser. 2022. The State of the Creator Economy | Definition, Growth & Market Size. Influencer Marketing Hub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. James Grimmelmann. 2015. The Virtues of Moderation. Yale Journal of Law and Technology 17, (2015). Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/yjolt17&id=42&div=&collection=Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nicholas Jackson. 2011. Infographic: The History of Video Advertising on YouTube. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/infographic-the-history-of-video-advertising-on-youtube/242836/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Shagun Jhaver, Darren Scott Appling, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. “Did you suspect the post would be removed?”: Understanding user reactions to content removals on reddit. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 3, CSCW (November 2019), 1–33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359294Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shagun Jhaver, Quan Ze Chen, Detlef Knauss, and Amy Zhang. 2022. Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-led Comment Moderation. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517505Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Prerna Juneja, Deepika Rama Subramanian, and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Through the looking glass: Study of transparency in Reddit's moderation practices. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 4, GROUP (January 2020), 1–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3375197Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Makena Kelly. 2019. YouTube calls for ‘more clarity’ on the FTC's child privacy rules. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/11/21011229/youtube-google-coppa-ftc-creators-videos-childrens-privacy-regulationsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Makena Kelly and Julia Alexander. 2019. YouTube's new kids’ content system has creators scrambling. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963459/youtube-google-coppa-ftc-fine-settlement-youtubers-new-rulesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2021. “How advertiser-friendly is my video?”: YouTuber's Socioeconomic Interactions with Algorithmic Content Moderation. PACM on Human Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–26. DOI:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3479573Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2022. “I'm not sure what difference is between their content and mine, other than the person itself”: A Study of Fairness Perception of Content Moderation on YouTube. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 6, CSCW2 (2022), 28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3555150Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2022. “I am not a YouTuber who can make whatever video I want. I have to keep appeasing algorithms”: Bureaucracy of Creator Moderation on YouTube. In Companion Computer Supported Co-operative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’22 Companion). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3500868.3559445Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2023. “Defaulting to boilerplate answers, they didn't engage in a genuine conversation”: Dimensions of Transparency Design in Creator Moderation. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3579477Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kaitlin Mahar, Amy X Zhang, and David Karger. 2018. Squadbox: A Tool to Combat Email Harassment Using Friendsourced Moderation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174160Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Colten Meisner and Andrew M. Ledbetter. 2020. Participatory branding on social media: The affordances of live streaming for creative labor: New Media Soc 24, 5 (November 2020), 1179–1195. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820972392Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeremy Pope and Frank Vogl. 2000. Making Anticorruption Agencies More Effective. Finance Dev 37, 002 (January 2000). DOI:https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451952827.022.A002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Carla Rover. 2022. Mapping The Trends: From Influencers to Influence Marketing. a.list.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun 52, 2 (2005), 163–174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kristen Vaccaro, Ziang Xiao, Kevin Hamilton, and Karrie Karahalios. 2021. Contestability For Content Moderation. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 5, CSCW2 (October 2021), 28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3476059Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Austin P. Wright, Omar Shaikh, Haekyu Park, Will Epperson, Muhammed Ahmed, Stephane Pinel, Duen Horng (Polo) Chau, and Diyi Yang. 2021. RECAST: Enabling User Recourse and Interpretability of Toxicity Detection Models with Interactive Visualization. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1–26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3449280Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CSCW '23 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
    October 2023
    596 pages
    ISBN:9798400701290
    DOI:10.1145/3584931

    Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 14 October 2023

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CSCW '24
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)90
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format