Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

But Who Protects the Moderators? The Case of Crowdsourced Image Moderation

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

arxiv 1804.10999 v4 pith:CAG2VFSP submitted 2018-04-29 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords contentimagemoderationmoderatorsemotionalfullyhumanaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Though detection systems have been developed to identify obscene content such as pornography and violence, artificial intelligence is simply not good enough to fully automate this task yet. Due to the need for manual verification, social media companies may hire internal reviewers, contract specialized workers from third parties, or outsource to online labor markets for the purpose of commercial content moderation. These content moderators are often fully exposed to extreme content and may suffer lasting psychological and emotional damage. In this work, we aim to alleviate this problem by investigating the following question: How can we reveal the minimum amount of information to a human reviewer such that an objectionable image can still be correctly identified? We design and conduct experiments in which blurred graphic and non-graphic images are filtered by human moderators on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We observe how obfuscation affects the moderation experience with respect to image classification accuracy, interface usability, and worker emotional well-being.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Measuring the Mental Health of Content Reviewers, a Systematic Review

    cs.CY 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Existing mental health scales from care professions are poorly matched to content reviewing and are not validated in most regions where moderation work happens.

  2. Wellbeing-Centered UX: Supporting Content Moderators

    cs.HC 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A framework for embedding moderator wellbeing into UX research, writing, and design via the principles of effectiveness, connection, and resilience.

Pith tools