Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Understanding the Perceptions of Trigger Warning and Content Warning on Social Media Platforms in the U.S

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Trigger warnings on social media fail because viewers, posters, and platforms each face unsolved tensions, a 15-person interview study argues.

desk verdict Useful qualitative map of TW/CW stakeholders, but a participant quote that could not have happened under the stated protocol undermines the pooled counts until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15429 v1 pith:S2WSANTN submitted 2025-04-21 cs.HC cs.CY

Xinyi Zhang , Muskan Gupta , Emily Altland , Sang Won Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords triggerwarningscontentsocialmediamoderationtrauma-informeddesignuserperceptionsqualitativestudyhuman-computerinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that trigger and content warnings (TW/CW) on social media are not working as intended because the people who view them, the people who post them, and the platforms that host them all face unresolved challenges. Through semi-structured interviews with 15 general social media users, the authors find that viewers struggle to decide whether to engage with warned content, posters struggle with whether and how to apply warnings, and platforms shape warning visibility in ways that often undermine their use. The paper proposes a conceptual framework that ties these three stakeholder perspectives together and offers design implications for platforms. If the framework is right, improving TW/CW requires coordinated changes that address all three roles simultaneously, not just one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the proposed conceptual framework of the TW/CW mechanism (Figure 2), which identifies three stakeholders—viewers, posters, and platforms—and the challenges and needs that connect them. The framework organizes the interview findings into a structure that explains how warning design choices propagate across roles: platform affordances shape what posters can do, poster choices shape what viewers encounter, and viewer responses shape platform decisions. The framework is used to derive design implications for platforms, emphasizing that TW/CW is not a simple label but a sociotechnical system.

What would settle it

Conduct a larger, more diverse survey or interview study that includes people who actively oppose TW/CW and people with severe trauma histories; if their perspectives reveal fundamentally different decision-making processes or barriers, the proposed three-stakeholder framework would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the TW/CW mechanism on social media is best understood as a three-way interaction among viewers, posters, and platforms, and that current practices fail because each stakeholder faces unacknowledged tensions. Viewers must weigh their need to decide whether to engage with content against the risk that too-specific warnings themselves trigger distress; posters must decide which topics warrant warnings despite the absence of shared standards, and they face a perceived trade-off between adding warnings and losing engagement; platforms determine the visibility and usability of warnings through design features that often make warnings easy to miss or that provoke curiosity rather than caution. The authors synthesize these findings into a conceptual framework that maps the relationships among the three stakeholders and suggests design interventions such as multi-level warning specificity, personalized filtering, and proactive poster support.

Load-bearing premise

The study's load-bearing assumption is that the 15 self-selected interview participants—recruited through a university listserv, a CS Discord, the authors' social media, and the r/mentalhealth subreddit—represent typical U.S. social media users, even though the sample skewed toward people already interested in TW/CW and did not include those who oppose warnings or have experienced severe trauma.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms could adopt multi-level warnings that let viewers choose how much specificity to reveal, reducing the risk that a warning itself becomes a trigger.
  • Posters could be supported by proactive, just-in-time prompts or automated suggestion tools that help them apply relevant warnings to their posts.
  • Warning labels could be linked to personalized filtering systems that let users block content by trigger category rather than deciding post-by-post.
  • Platforms could pair warnings with post-exposure support, such as mental-health resources or ways to break doom-scrolling cycles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the framework is correct, the effectiveness of TW/CW should be studied as a system effect rather than a label effect; a single change in platform design may shift the entire viewer-poster dynamic.
  • The paper's finding that vague warnings can provoke curiosity suggests a testable design hypothesis: incremental disclosure (e.g., a 'see why' button) may reduce accidental exposure while preserving informed choice, but it needs experimental validation.
  • The absence of severe-trauma survivors and warning opponents in the sample means the framework may be incomplete for exactly the populations that warnings are meant to protect most.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a semi-structured interview study with 15 US-based social media users to understand perceptions of trigger and content warnings (TW/CW). It identifies challenges for three stakeholder groups: viewers deciding whether to engage with warning-labeled content, posters deciding whether and how to apply warnings, and platforms whose design features shape the visibility and usability of warnings. Based on a two-phase thematic analysis, the authors propose a conceptual framework (Figure 2) that interrelates viewers, posters, and platforms, and they derive design implications such as multi-level warning specificity, poster-facing nudges, and post-exposure support resources. The appendices contain the screening survey, both interview protocols, and the set of warning examples used as stimuli.

Significance. If the findings hold, the proposed framework provides a useful synthesis of how TW/CW function across stakeholders and can inform concrete platform design decisions. The paper's strengths include its detailed documentation of the interview protocols and stimulus materials in the appendices, which supports reproducibility, and its grounding of themes in participant quotes and prevalence counts. The design implications (e.g., layered warnings, personalized filtering, poster nudges, post-exposure care) are actionable and align with prior trauma-informed computing work. However, the contribution's credibility depends heavily on transparent reporting of which data came from which interview protocol and on the sample's representativeness of 'general social media users'; both aspects currently have unresolved issues that affect the empirical grounding of the framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.1.1] The quote attributed to P04, a participant from the first cohort (P1–P6), refers to 'the middle one (Figure 3-B)' and to a slide labeled 'TW: Gangrape (Figure 3-C)', yet Section 3.2 states that the slide deck of warning examples was developed as part of the updated protocol for the remaining nine participants (P7–P15). Unless the slide deck was also shown to the first cohort, which the paper does not state, this quotation is chronologically impossible. Because the paper uses this quote as evidence for the claim that 3/15 participants found overly specific warnings potentially triggering, this inconsistency directly affects the evidentiary basis of the theme in Section 4.1.1. The authors should clarify whether the slide deck was used with P1–P6 or revise the results to exclude data from participants who did not see the stimuli.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4] The results report aggregate prevalence counts (e.g., 12/15, 5/15, 7/15) that pool data from two different interview protocols described in Section 3.2. The initial protocol probed perceived differences between TW and CW, while the revised protocol reoriented the questions toward viewer-versus-poster dynamics and introduced a slide-deck stimulus. Presenting combined counts without cohort-specific denominators or question-by-question availability makes it impossible to determine whether a given theme emerged from comparable prompts across both cohorts. The authors should either report which codes and themes were present in each cohort or provide a clear justification for why pooling is valid despite the protocol change.
  3. [Section 3.1, Section 5.6, and the Abstract] The paper characterizes the participants as 'general social media users' in the U.S., but recruitment was limited to a graduate student listserv, a CS Discord server, the authors' personal accounts, and the r/mentalhealth subreddit. The paper itself concedes in Section 5.6 that the sample skewed toward users with a pre-existing interest in TW/CW, excluded users who oppose warnings, and did not include severe trauma survivors or heavy content creators. The abstract and research questions frame the findings as applicable to general users; this framing is stronger than the evidence supports. The authors should temper the generalizing language or explicitly present the study as an exploratory, purposive-sample investigation with transferability as the goal.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'interacting with a subscribe' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'interacting with a subscriber' or 'interacting with a user'.
  2. [Appendix A.1] The heading 'Interest in Being Interviews' should read 'Interest in Being Interviewed'.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] The sentence 'users can voluntarily flag their social media as "sensitive content"' should refer to flagging their posts or content, not 'social media'.
  4. [Section 5.6] The phrase 'did not inquire if they have' is grammatically incomplete; consider changing to 'did not inquire whether they had such experiences'.
  5. [References] References [1], [2], [4], and [54] lack publication dates (shown as '[n. d.]'); the authors should provide them or use a consistent citation style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TW/CW framework is an inductive synthesis of interview data, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a qualitative interview study with no formal derivation chain, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The conceptual framework in Figure 2 is explicitly presented as an inductive result of thematic analysis (Section 3.3), not as a deduction from an assumption. Prevalence counts such as 12/15 and 3/15 are descriptive tallies of participants' reported experiences, not outputs of a model fitted to those same experiences. One author of the present paper is also an author of the cited NudgeCred work [7], but that citation is used only as background for analogous pre-submission interventions in Section 5.4 and is not load-bearing for the TW/CW findings; the central claims rest on the interview data and on external literature such as [15], [16], [29], [51], and [58]. The limitations section (5.6) candidly restricts generalization to non-opposing, non-severe-trauma, casual-user perspectives, which is a sampling-validity concern rather than a circularity concern. The internal inconsistency noted by the reviewer, involving P04's quotation about slide-deck examples that Section 3.2 says were introduced for the second cohort, is a protocol-transparency or chronological-validity issue; it does not cause any claim to reduce to its own inputs. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities arise in this qualitative study. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about self-report validity, sample sufficiency, thematic stability, and the accepted warning typology; the paper explicitly flags the first two in Section 5.6 but does not resolve them.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported interview accounts are a valid proxy for actual social media warning behavior.
    The study uses interviews rather than log data or observation; all findings in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 rely on what participants said they do.
  • domain assumption Fifteen purposively sampled participants provide enough breadth to speak about general social media users.
    No saturation analysis is reported, and Section 5.6 concedes that the sample skewed toward participants with an existing interest in TW/CW.
  • domain assumption The two-phase inductive thematic analysis yields stable themes without inter-coder agreement checks.
    Section 3.3 describes open then axial coding, but no reliability statistics or external audit are provided.
  • domain assumption The warning typology of Charles et al. [15] is accepted as the background categorization.
    The paper uses this prior systematic review to interpret which topics participants considered warning-worthy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding the Perceptions of Trigger Warning and Content Warning on Social Media Platforms in the U.S." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2WSANTN

@misc{pith2026250415429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding the Perceptions of Trigger Warning and Content Warning on Social Media Platforms in the U.S},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2WSANTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15429}
}
read the original abstract

The prevalence of distressing content on social media raises concerns about users' mental well-being, prompting the use of trigger warnings (TW) and content warnings (CW). However, inconsistent implementation of TW/CW across platforms and the lack of standardized practices confuse users regarding these warnings. To better understand how users experienced and utilized these warnings, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with 15 general social media users. Our findings reveal challenges across three key stakeholders: viewers, who need to decide whether to engage with warning-labeled content; posters, who struggle with whether and how to apply TW/CW to the content; and platforms, whose design features shape the visibility and usability of warnings. While users generally expressed positive attitudes toward warnings, their understanding of TW/CW usage was limited. Based on these insights, we proposed a conceptual framework of the TW/CW mechanisms from multiple stakeholders' perspectives. Lastly, we further reflected on our findings and discussed the opportunities for social media platforms to enhance users' TW/CW experiences, fostering a more trauma-informed social media environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) TW for a text post on Instagram, (B) CW for a video on Facebook, (C) CW for an image on Facebook [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the Trigger Warning (TW) and Content Warning (CW) Mechanism [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (A) CW in caption text post on Instagram, (B) Informal CW in caption text post on Instagram, (C) TW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) CW embedded within text post on Reddit, (B) CW for a video on Facebook, (C) CW for a post on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) CW for a video on YouTube, presented with a single-option interface, (B) CW for a video on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Does The Dog Die: Crowdsourced emotional spoilers for movies, tv, books and more. https://www.doesthedogdie. com/

    work page

  2. [2]

    [n. d.]. Shinigami Eyes: A browser addon that highlights transphobic and trans-friendly social network pages and users with different colors. https://shinigami-eyes.github.io/

    work page

  3. [3]

    Nazanin Andalibi. 2020. Disclosure, privacy, and stigma on social media: Examining non-disclosure of distressing experiences. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction (TOCHI) 27, 3 (2020), 1–43

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Keely Ball. [n. d.]. Let’s Talk About Trigger Warnings | Keely Ball | TEDxWarwick . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Zcn1RMZCVI4&ab_channel=TEDxTalks

    work page

  5. [5]

    Benjamin W Bellet, Payton J Jones, and Richard J McNally. 2020. Self-triggering? An exploration of individuals who seek reminders of trauma. Clinical Psychological Science 8, 4 (2020), 739–755

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Corina Benjet, Evelyn Bromet, Elie G Karam, Ronald C Kessler, Katie A McLaughlin, Ayelet M Ruscio, Vicki Shahly, Dan J Stein, Maria Petukhova, E Hill, et al. 2016. The epidemiology of traumatic event exposure worldwide: results from the World Mental Health Survey Consortium. Psychological medicine 46, 2 (2016), 327–343. J. ACM, Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111...

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Md Momen Bhuiyan, Michael Horning, Sang Won Lee, and Tanushree Mitra. 2021. Nudgecred: Supporting news credibility assessment on social media through nudges. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–30

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Jack Bowker and Jacques Ophoff. 2022. Reducing Exposure to Hateful Speech Online. In Science and Information Conference. Springer, 630–645

    work page 2022

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  2. [10]

    Victoria ME Bridgland, Benjamin W Bellet, and Melanie KT Takarangi. 2023. Curiosity disturbed the cat: Instagram’s sensitive-content screens do not deter vulnerable users from viewing distressing content. Clinical psychological science 11, 2 (2023), 290–307

    2023

  3. [11]

    Victoria ME Bridgland, Deanne M Green, Jacinta M Oulton, and Melanie KT Takarangi. 2019. Expecting the worst: Investigating the effects of trigger warnings on reactions to ambiguously themed photos. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 25, 4 (2019), 602

    2019

  4. [12]

    Victoria ME Bridgland, Payton J Jones, and Benjamin W Bellet. 2022. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of trigger warnings, content warnings, and content notes. Clinical Psychological Science (2022), 21677026231186625

    2022

  5. [13]

    Victoria ME Bridgland, Payton J Jones, and Benjamin W Bellet. 2024. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of trigger warnings, content warnings, and content notes. Clinical Psychological Science 12, 4 (2024), 751–771

    2024

  6. [14]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Umashanthi Pavalanathan, Anirudh Srinivasan, Adam Glynn, Jacob Eisenstein, and Eric Gilbert. 2017. You can’t stay here: The efficacy of reddit’s 2015 ban examined through hate speech. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1–22

    2017

  7. [15]

    Ashleigh Charles, Laurie Hare-Duke, Hannah Nudds, Donna Franklin, Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley, Stefan Rennick- Egglestone, Onni Gust, Fiona Ng, Elizabeth Evans, Emily Knox, et al. 2022. Typology of content warnings and trigger warnings: Systematic review. PloS one 17, 5 (2022), e0266722

    2022

  8. [16]

    Janet X Chen, Allison McDonald, Yixin Zou, Emily Tseng, Kevin A Roundy, Acar Tamersoy, Florian Schaub, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2022. Trauma-Informed Computing: Towards Safer Technology Experiences for All. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2022

  9. [17]

    Kevin Chow, Thomas Fritz, Liisa Holsti, Skye Barbic, and Joanna McGrenere. 2023. Feeling stressed and unproductive? A field evaluation of a therapy-inspired digital intervention for knowledge workers. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction 31, 1 (2023), 1–33

    2023

  10. [18]

    Chelsea Church, Ole A Andreassen, Steinar Lorentzen, Ingrid Melle, and Monica Aas. 2017. Childhood trauma and minimization/denial in people with and without a severe mental disorder. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 1276

    2017

  11. [19]

    Katherine Cohen, Mallory Dobias, Robert Morris, and Jessica Schleider. 2023. Improving uptake of mental health crisis resources: Randomized test of a single-session intervention embedded in social media. Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy 33, 1 (2023), 24–34

    2023

  12. [20]

    Anjali Devakumar, Jay Modh, Bahador Saket, Eric PS Baumer, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. A review on strategies for data collection, reflection, and communication in eating disorder apps. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–19

    2021

  13. [21]

    Gavin Doherty, David Coyle, and John Sharry. 2012. Engagement with online mental health interventions: an exploratory clinical study of a treatment for depression. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1421–1430

    2012

  14. [22]

    Thomas Erickson and Wendy A Kellogg. 2000. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 59–83

    2000

  15. [23]

    Kathleen Kara Fitzpatrick, Alison Darcy, and Molly Vierhile. 2017. Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR mental health 4, 2 (2017), e7785

    2017

  16. [24]

    Liza Gak, Seyi Olojo, and Niloufar Salehi. 2022. The distressing ads that persist: Uncovering the harms of targeted weight-loss ads among users with histories of disordered eating.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–23

    2022

  17. [25]

    R Stuart Geiger. 2016. Bot-based collective blocklists in Twitter: the counterpublic moderation of harassment in a networked public space. Information, Communication & Society 19, 6 (2016), 787–803

    2016

  18. [26]

    Evan George and Angela Hovey. 2020. Deciphering the trigger warning debate: a qualitative analysis of online comments. Teaching in Higher Education 25, 7 (2020), 825–841

    2020

  19. [27]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2022. Do not recommend? Reduction as a form of content moderation. Social Media+ Society 8, 3 (2022), 20563051221117552

    2022

  20. [28]

    Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945. J. ACM, Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: Aug...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Oliver L Haimson, Justin Buss, Zu Weinger, Denny L Starks, Dykee Gorrell, and Briar Sweetbriar Baron. 2020. Trans Time: Safety, Privacy, and Content Warnings on a Transgender-Specific Social Media Site. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–27

    2020

  22. [30]

    Oliver L Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner. 2021. Disproportionate removals and differing content moderation experiences for conservative, transgender, and black social media users: Marginalization and moderation gray areas. Proceedings of the ACM on Hum...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Ignorance is Not Bliss

    Sharon Heung, Lucy Jiang, Shiri Azenkot, and Aditya Vashistha. 2025. " Ignorance is Not Bliss": Designing Personalized Moderation to Address Ableist Hate on Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21844 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Justin Cheng, and Robert West. 2023. Automated content moderation increases adherence to community guidelines. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2023 . 2666–2676

    2023

  25. [33]

    Esther Howe, Jina Suh, Mehrab Bin Morshed, Daniel McDuff, Kael Rowan, Javier Hernandez, Marah Ihab Abdin, Gonzalo Ramos, Tracy Tran, and Mary P Czerwinski. 2022. Design of digital workplace stress-reduction intervention systems: Effects of intervention type and timing. InProce...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Larke N Huang, Rebecca Flatow, Tenly Biggs, Sara Afayee, Kelley Smith, Thomas Clark, and Mary Blake. 2014. SAMHSA’s Concept of Truama and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Emelia May Hughes, Renee Wang, Prerna Juneja, Tony W Li, Tanushree Mitra, and Amy X. Zhang. 2024. Viblio: Introducing Credibility Signals and Citations to Video-Sharing Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, US...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Orla Hyland. 2023. A qualitative investigation of people’s attitudes towards the use of trigger warnings on social media . Ph. D. Dissertation. Dublin, National College of Ireland

    2023

  29. [37]

    Farnaz Jahanbakhsh, Yannis Katsis, Dakuo Wang, Lucian Popa, and Michael Muller. 2023. Exploring the use of personalized AI for identifying misinformation on social media. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–27

    2023

  30. [38]

    Farnaz Jahanbakhsh, Amy X Zhang, Adam J Berinsky, Gordon Pennycook, David G Rand, and David R Karger

  31. [39]

    Shagun Jhaver. 2023. Bans vs. Warning Labels: Examining Bystanders’ Support for Community-wide Moderation Interventions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Shagun Jhaver, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. Human-machine collaboration for content regulation: The case of reddit automoderator. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26, 5 (2019), 1–35

    2019

  33. [41]

    Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Does transparency in moderation really matter? User behavior after content removal explanations on reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–27

    2019

  34. [42]

    Shagun Jhaver, Quan Ze Chen, Detlef Knauss, and Amy X. Zhang. 2022. Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-led Comment Moderation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22) . Association for Computing Mach...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. Online harassment and content moderation: The case of blocklists. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 25, 2 (2018), 1–33

    2018

  36. [44]

    Shagun Jhaver, Alice Qian Zhang, Quan Ze Chen, Nikhila Natarajan, Ruotong Wang, and Amy X Zhang. 2023. Personalizing content moderation on social media: User perspectives on moderation choices, interface design, and labor. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Caitlin Lustig, Artie Konrad, and Jed R Brubaker. 2022. Designing for the Bittersweet: Improving Sensitive Experiences with Recommender Systems. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2022

  38. [46]

    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 . 1–13

    2018

  39. [47]

    Gloria Mark, Mary Czerwinski, and Shamsi T Iqbal. 2018. Effects of individual differences in blocking workplace distractions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2018

  40. [48]

    Irene V Pasquetto, Briony Swire-Thompson, Michelle A Amazeen, Fabrício Benevenuto, Nadia M Brashier, Robert M Bond, Lia C Bozarth, Ceren Budak, Ullrich KH Ecker, Lisa K Fazio, et al . 2020. Tackling misinformation: What researchers could do with social media data. The Harvard ...

    2020

  41. [49]

    Desmond Upton Patton, Jamie MacBeth, Sarita Schoenebeck, Katherine Shear, and Kathleen McKeown. 2018. Accom- modating grief on Twitter: an analysis of expressions of grief among gang involved youth on Twitter using qualitative analysis and natural language processing. Biomedic...

    2018

  42. [50]

    Morgan E PettyJohn, Grace Anderson, and Heather L McCauley. 2022. Exploring survivor experiences on social media in the# MeToo era: Clinical recommendations for addressing impacts on mental health and relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37, 21-22 (2022), NP20677–NP20700

    2022

  43. [51]

    Chanda Phelan, Jeremy Heyer, Rachel Pfafman, Connie Kerrigan, Golfo K Tzilos Wernette, Lynn Dombrowski, Andrew D Miller, and Jessica Pater. 2022. The Work of Digital Social Re-entry in Substance Use Disorder Recovery. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSC...

    2022

  44. [52]

    If Someone Downvoted My Posts—That’d Be the End of the World

    Casey Randazzo and Tawifq Ammari. 2023. “If Someone Downvoted My Posts—That’d Be the End of the World”: Designing Safer Online Spaces for Trauma Survivors. (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Herbert J Rubin and Irene S Rubin. 2011. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data . sage

    2011

  46. [54]

    Henrik Skaug Sætra and Jo Ese. [n. d.]. Shinigami Eyes and social media labelling as a technology for self-care. ([n. d.])

  47. [55]

    Carol F Scott, Gabriela Marcu, Riana Elyse Anderson, Mark W Newman, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2023. Trauma- informed social media: Towards solutions for reducing and healing online harm. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2023

  48. [56]

    Joseph Seering. 2020. Reconsidering community self-moderation: the role of research in supporting community-based models for online content moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4 (2020), 107

    2020

  49. [57]

    Bhakti Sharma, Susanna S Lee, and Benjamin K Johnson. 2022. The dark at the end of the tunnel: Doomscrolling on social media newsfeeds. (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Laura South, Caglar Yildirim, Amy Pavel, and Michelle A Borkin. 2023. Exploratory Thematic Analysis of Crowdsourced Photosensitivity Warnings. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–7

    2023

  51. [59]

    Manuka Stratta, Julia Park, and Cooper deNicola. 2020. Automated Content Warnings for Sensitive Posts. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

    2020

  52. [60]

    H Tankovska. 2021. Social media use during COVID-19 worldwide–Statistics & facts. Statistica. https://www. statista. com/topics/7863/social-media-use-during-coronavirus-covid-19-worldwide (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Chau Tran, Kejsi Take, Kaylea Champion, Benjamin Mako Hill, and Rachel Greenstadt. 2024. Challenges in restructuring community-based moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–24

    2024

  54. [62]

    Nina Vlodder et al. 2023. Social Representations of Harm: Trigger Warning Practices on Facebook Watch. (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    content warning

    Nan Zhao and Guangyu Zhou. 2020. Social media use and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Moderator role of disaster stressor and mediator role of negative affect. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 12, 4 (2020), 1019–1038. A APPENDIX A.1 Study Survey Screening ...

    2020

  56. [2021]

    Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–42

    Exploring lightweight interventions at posting time to reduce the sharing of misinformation on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–42

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.