REVIEW 4 cited by
Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Flagging mechanisms on social media platforms allow users to report inappropriate posts/accounts for review by content moderators. These reports are pivotal to platforms' efforts toward regulating norm violations. This paper examines how platforms' design choices in implementing flagging mechanisms influence flaggers' perceptions of content moderation. We conducted a survey experiment asking US respondents (N=2,936) to flag inappropriate posts using one of 54 randomly assigned flagging implementations. After flagging, participants rated their fairness perceptions of the flag submission process along the dimensions of consistency, transparency, and voice (agency). We found that participants perceived greater transparency when flagging interfaces included community guidelines and greater voice when they incorporated a text box for open-ended feedback. Our qualitative analysis highlights user needs for improved accessibility, educational support for reporting, and protections against false flags. We offer design recommendations for building fairer flagging systems without exacerbating the cognitive burden of submitting flags.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Commenotes: Synthesizing Organic Comments to Support Community-Based Fact-Checking
A filtering plus LLM synthesis pipeline turns early user comments into community-note-style fact-checks; the best model beats human notes in 70.1% of pairwise user ratings.
-
"I thought it was my mistake, but it's really the design'': A Critical Examination of the Accessibility of User-Enacted Moderation Tools on Facebook and X
Blind and low-vision users face learning, compliance, and psychological costs when using moderation tools on Facebook and X, due to poor accessibility design.
-
From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems
Online reporting systems are characterized as inquisitorial, and a design space gives users adversarial-style control over evidence disclosure, authentication, and privacy during moderation.
-
The Pin of Shame: Examining Content Creators' Adoption of Pinning Inappropriate Comments as a Moderation Strategy
Creators pin negative comments to invite public shaming as a moderation tactic, gaining social support and norm enforcement while risking emotional strain and escalation.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.