Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 143 references

From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that online reporting systems are organized like inquisitorial courts, and that letting users control evidence disclosure and authentication can make them fairer and more private.

desk verdict The adversarial/inquisitorial lens on online reporting is a real contribution and the design space is worth serious referee time, but the paper should be read as an argued design thesis, not an empirical demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07041 v2 pith:OG63UORA submitted 2025-06-08 cs.HC

Leijie Wang , Weizi Wu , Lirong Que , Nirvan Tyagi , Amy X. Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords onlinereportingsystemscontentmoderationadversariallegalmodelinquisitorialproceduraljusticeevidenceauthenticationprivacydesignspace
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

User reporting on platforms like messaging apps and community servers typically works the way an inquisitorial court does: moderators gather surrounding messages, look at account histories, and contact bystanders, while the reporter has little say in what is collected or shown. The paper argues that this structure is the root cause of users' well-documented frustrations with reporting systems being black boxes that invade privacy and feel unfair. It claims that adversarial legal practices, in which the parties control what evidence is presented and tested, can be adapted to online reporting and that this improves procedural justice and privacy without automatically enabling abuse. The paper's contribution is a design space with user-chosen conversation scope, graded information visibility, access control, progressive disclosure, bystander verification, platform-side authenticated forwarding, and ephemeral reporting, each paired with a mitigation for the abuse it invites.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the adversarial–inquisitorial distinction from comparative legal theory, applied to the evidence-collection stage of reporting. Its concrete form is a four-dimensional design space—conversation scope, information visibility, access control, and user control—together with four abuse-mitigation devices: progressive disclosure, bystander cross-verification, platform-side authenticated forwarding, and ephemeral reporting with a sliding window. The machinery translates the legal value of party control over evidence into interface-level choices that can be threat-modeled under the paper's stated assumptions: users and moderators act through the user interface, and the platform is trusted to see messages and behave without bias.

What would settle it

A controlled deployment that compares the proposed adversarial flow (user-selected redaction, progressive disclosure, authenticated forwarding, ephemeral reporting) against a current inquisitorial flow on the same community platform, measuring perceived procedural justice, reporting rates, and false-report rates, would settle the claim; the claim collapses if user-controlled disclosure does not improve fairness perceptions or if abuse rises beyond the inquisitorial baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that online community reporting systems predominantly follow an inquisitorial model: moderators hold the authority to gather evidence, define the case, and make the final decision, and this organization produces the low procedural justice and privacy erosion that users report. The constructive discovery is that a rich design space exists for making evidence collection adversarial. The paper maps the space along four dimensions—the scope of relevant conversations, the visibility of message content (from metadata-only to full content with redaction in between), access control over who sees evidence and when, and the degree of user control over these choices—and adds complementary mechanisms: progressive disclosure with moderator justification, bystander cross-verification with the reporter's consent, platform-side authenticated forwarding that shows forwarded status and account identifiers, and ephemeral reporting that keeps only a short sliding window of voice or disappearing content. Each design is paired with a threat-modeled abuse mitigation, because the paper deliberately does not rely on the reported person's participation, which is the main abuse-control device in offline adversarial systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that adversarial procedure's documented gains in perceived fairness and privacy carry over to online reporting even when the reported party is deliberately not involved and users and moderators are assumed to act only through the official interface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reporting interfaces could let users choose which messages, how much of each message, and which moderators see it, while moderators can request more content and must justify the request.
  • Platforms could repurpose message forwarding for reporting by displaying forwarded status, original account identifiers, and original timestamps, replacing screenshots that are easy to forge.
  • Ephemeral spaces like voice chats and disappearing messages could become reportable through configurable short recording windows instead of permanent surveillance.
  • Moderators could investigate without seeing the reporter's identity by delaying identifier disclosure, limiting it to senior moderators, or showing pseudonymous tags built from moderation history.
  • Beyond the UI-bounded setting, the same designs could be reimplemented with message franking, anonymous reporting protocols, and proofs of correct client-side processing when platforms are untrusted or clients are modified.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adversarial design space predicts adoption patterns, communities with decentralized governance and stronger privacy norms should show larger procedural-justice gains from these designs; the paper leaves this as a hypothesis for future work.
  • The paper's threat model highlights modified clients as the main residual risk, so a natural next step is cryptographic or hardware-backed proof that redaction and LLM-based disclosure ran exactly as the interface showed.
  • The adversarial analogy could be extended beyond evidence collection to appeals and moderator selection, formalizing precedent-based reasoning and user-directed moderator assignment as additional design dimensions.
  • A testable extension would measure moderator workload under progressive disclosure; the paper argues the burden shifts from evidence collection to dialogue, which is plausible but unmeasured.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that online community reporting systems largely follow an inquisitorial model, in which moderators lead evidence collection and case development, and that this organization contributes to documented user frustrations about procedural justice and privacy. Drawing on comparative legal theory (Damaska, Thibaut and Walker, Sevier), platform documentation, and twelve formative interviews with Discord moderators and users, the authors propose a design space for more adversarial reporting systems: four dimensions of evidence disclosure, progressive disclosure, bystander verification, platform-side authenticated forwarding, ephemeral reporting, moderator-tag-based account information, and consent-based testimonial collection. The paper also discusses cryptographic extensions under stronger threat models and identifies open problems. The central claim is that user-controlled, authenticated evidence presentation can strengthen procedural justice and privacy while keeping abuse manageable, and the manuscript is explicit that implementation and empirical evaluation remain future work.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful theoretical and design contribution: it offers a structured, evidence-grounded vocabulary for redesigning reporting workflows, connects established procedural-justice findings to platform governance, and introduces concrete, testable mechanisms such as ephemeral reporting and progressive disclosure. The authors deserve credit for being appropriately hedged throughout ("we envision", "could"), for making the threat model explicit, and for openly discussing in Section 5.2 where the designs fail under modified clients and untrusted platforms. The paper is a design-space paper rather than an empirical validation; its value lies in framing and generative design ideas, not in measured outcomes. The main risk is that the transfer from offline adversarial procedure to a one-sided, UI-bounded, trusted-platform setting is asserted rather than demonstrated, which makes the abuse-management claim the paper's most fragile load-bearing point.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.3.3 and 4; abstract] The paper's central value proposition depends on adversarial procedural-justice benefits surviving translation to a reporting process in which the reported party is deliberately excluded. The cited evidence for adversarial benefits (Thibaut and Walker 1975; Sevier 2014, Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) comes from two-party proceedings with discovery, cross-examination, and oppositional representation. Section 3.3.3 explicitly chooses not to involve the opposing party, and the designs in Section 4 give only the reporting user unilateral control over disclosure, moderator selection, and evidence authentication. The manuscript does not provide an argument, empirical result, or prior work showing that such unilateral control preserves the procedural-justice and privacy effects documented in two-party settings, nor that progressive disclosure and bystander flagging substitute for cross-examination in deterring selective or fabricated evidence. This is load-bearing for the claim that the design space is "adversarial" and that it improves procedural justice. I recommend either narrowing the theoretical claim to user control and process voice, or adding a direct assessment (e.g., vignette-based experiments varying the presence of an opposing party, or a structured argument from the procedural-justice literature about the active ingredient of adversarial process).
  2. [Section 4 threat model and Section 5.2] The abuse-resistance claim is analyzed only under the assumptions that users are UI-bounded and the platform is trusted, yet Section 5.2 concedes that modified clients and untrusted platforms violate these assumptions. Within the stated threat model itself, the analysis is informal: the paper does not systematically evaluate malicious reporter behavior such as strategically choosing conversation-scope filters to omit exculpatory context, redacting text in ways that distort meaning, declining progressive-disclosure requests while credibly claiming privacy, or coordinating with a bystander to flag or not flag evidence. These behaviors are all available to a UI-bounded user, and the paper's safeguards (progressive disclosure with justification, bystander consent, moderator dismissal of reports) are processes rather than demonstrated controls on false or misleading reports. As a result, "keeping abuse manageable" is asserted, not shown. Please provide a more systematic threat analysis for the stated threat model, or substantially soften the claim to say that the designs aim to mitigate abuse and identify the conditions under which they might fail.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 6] The empirical base for the diagnostic claim that "online community reporting systems often follow an inquisitorial model" consists of a literature review and twelve formative interviews, all from Discord. The interviews are used to characterize underexplored aspects of the reporting process, and the paper appropriately describes them as formative. However, the design space in Section 4 is presented as applicable beyond Discord, including E2EE platforms (WhatsApp, Signal) and platform-level reporting systems, where moderator roles, access to message content, and appeal structures differ substantially. The generalization from Discord-based community moderation to platform-level and E2EE settings is not supported by the presented evidence. Please either restrict the empirical characterization to community-level systems similar to Discord, or add evidence at another level of analysis (e.g., structured comparisons of platform documentation across the systems cited in Section 4.1.1).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 2] The sentence "An additional complaint involves the privacy tradeoffs and loss of control users face when filing a report [ ? ]." contains a placeholder citation marker that should be replaced with the intended reference.
  2. [Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3] Both Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.3 are titled "Challenge Two"; the latter should be renamed "Challenge Three" to match the numbering of the design challenges in Figure 2.
  3. [Section 3.1] The method section reports interview length, compensation, and the deductive thematic analysis approach, but does not report whether coding reached saturation or how disagreements between the two independent coders were resolved; a brief statement would strengthen the formative-empirics description.
  4. [Figure 3 and Section 4.1.1, Design Space 2] The LLM-based option in Figure 3 is labeled "Only show the answer to an open-ended question," but the caption and text could more explicitly note that the answer is generated by an LLM and that the user's trust in the model is a precondition; the current text only mentions this in the body, not in the figure.
  5. [Article header] The running header "CSCW'26, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY" contains an inconsistent venue-year combination (2018 versus 2026) and should be cleaned up before submission.
  6. [References] Reference formatting is inconsistent: [35] and [36] use "FaceBook" with irregular capitalization, and [108] should likely be "Joseph Seering" to match the cited article; a full reference pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adversarial design space is synthesized from external legal scholarship and platform documentation; self-citations are background motivation, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central classification of reporting systems as inquisitorial is an interpretive mapping using Damaska's external framework (The Faces of Justice and State Authority [28]), and the claimed benefits of adversarial procedure for procedural justice and privacy are grounded in external empirical legal work (Thibaut and Walker 1975 [124]; Sevier 2014 [110]; Lind, Thibaut, and Walker 1973 [79]). The design space is generated from that external framework together with documented platform practices (Messenger, WhatsApp, Google Chat, WeChat, Signal, Matrix) and formative interviews, not from the authors' prior outputs. The only directly relevant self-citation, Wang et al. SOUPS 2023 [131], is used as background motivation about privacy concerns on E2EE reporting platforms; it does not define the design space or the outcome claims. Other self-citations ([37], [59], [78], [141], [23]) support peripheral observations about governance and ODR and are not load-bearing. There are no fitted parameters called predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own work, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The strongest limitation—Section 5.2's concession that UI-bounded and trusted-platform assumptions fail for modified clients and untrusted platforms—is an explicit scope boundary, not a circular step: it narrows the claim rather than making the conclusion equivalent to its input. The transfer of adversarial benefits from two-party offline courts to one-sided online reporting is an open empirical question, but that is a correctness and validity risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 5 invented entities

Numeric free parameters: none. The paper makes no fitted or quantitative predictions; illustrative configuration values (last 30 seconds of voice chat, 30 surrounding messages in Messenger, 50 in Google Chat) are examples of platform policy choices, not parameters on which the central claim depends. The central claim instead rests on four qualitative assumptions listed below: the inquisitorial characterization of current systems, the offline-to-online transfer of adversarial benefits, the UI-bounded trusted-platform threat model, and the procedural-justice diagnosis of user frustration. Damaska's governance framework is imported from comparative law as an organizing analogy rather than an empirically tested mapping.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Current online reporting systems predominantly follow an inquisitorial model, with moderators leading evidence gathering and case development.
    Argued from platform documentation and 12 Discord-only formative interviews (Sections 2.4 and 3.1); the cross-platform generalization is inferred, not sampled.
  • domain assumption Adversarial procedure provides better procedural justice and privacy than inquisitorial procedure, and this benefit transfers to online reporting.
    Restated from offline legal studies (Thibaut and Walker 1975; Sevier 2014) in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2; the transfer is asserted with the reported party excluded (Section 3.3.3) and is not directly tested.
  • domain assumption Users and moderators are UI-bounded in their abuse capability, and platforms are trusted to see messages and operate without bias.
    Stated as the threat model at the start of Section 4; Section 5.2 concedes that modified clients and untrusted platforms invalidate most designs absent cryptographic extensions.
  • domain assumption User frustration with reporting stems mainly from lack of input and visibility (procedural justice) and privacy loss.
    Underpins the motivation in Sections 1 and 3.2; supported by cited surveys and the 12 interviews, but alternative causes of underreporting are not examined.
  • ad hoc to paper Damaska's two-dimensional framework for state authority maps onto online platform governance.
    Section 2.4 imports the offline comparative-law framework as an analogy for platform governance; the mapping is argued, not empirically established.
invented entities (5)
  • Ephemeral reporting (sliding-window recording)
    purpose: Enables reporting of voice chat or self-destructing messages by retaining a short configurable window (e.g., last 30 seconds) and deleting older content, preserving some privacy while supporting authentication.
    Mockup only (Figure 7, Section 4.1.3); no implementation measures privacy loss, retention behavior, or moderator usefulness.
  • Progressive disclosure protocol
    purpose: Lets moderators request access to redacted content with stated justifications while users weigh privacy against report credibility, as an abuse control for selective disclosure.
    Mockup only (Figure 5, Section 4.1.1); no user study tests whether users disclose more or moderators request responsibly.
  • Bystander cross-examination for evidence verification
    purpose: Lets other conversation participants flag suspicious redactions without revealing content, substituting for offline cross-examination that the paper excludes.
    Concept proposed (Figure 5, Section 4.1.1); risks of bystander inference about the reporter's identity are acknowledged but untested.
  • Platform-side authenticated message forwarding
    purpose: Repurposes existing forwarding so reports display forwarded status, account identifiers, and original timestamps, enabling moderator-side authentication of screenshots.
    Design sketch (Figure 6, Section 4.1.2); compatible with non-E2EE platforms but not implemented, and E2EE settings would require message franking protocols.
  • Moderator tagging system for user traits
    purpose: Replaces raw account identifiers with pseudonymous moderator-authored labels in reporting workflows, limiting identity exposure while preserving context.
    Proposed in Section 4.2; creates its own bias-recording risks and is not prototyped or evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OG63UORA

@misc{pith2026250607041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OG63UORA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07041}
}
read the original abstract

User reporting systems play a central role in how online communities address interpersonal conflict and harassment, especially in private spaces such as direct messages, voice chats, and end-to-end encrypted messaging. These settings complicate evidence collection for community moderators while heightening users' concerns about procedural justice and privacy. To examine these challenges, we draw on adversarial legal frameworks from offline judicial systems and apply them to community-level reporting systems, using Discord as a research site. We find that online community reporting systems often follow an inquisitorial model, in which moderators lead evidence collection and case development, rather than an adversarial model, which gives users greater control over how evidence is presented and contested. Although adversarial practices can strengthen procedural justice and protect privacy, they can also introduce new risks of abuse, underscoring the need for careful threat modeling. Building on this analysis, we present a design space for giving users greater control over the disclosure and authentication of evidence while accounting for the privacy constraints and technical affordances of online communities. We conclude by discussing how this design space can inform platform-level reporting systems and how cryptographic techniques may help reinforce these systems amid growing distrust in platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Through the lens of adversarial models, we identify inquisitorial practices of today’s reporting systems, where moderators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of Redesigning Evidence Collection Process Using an Adversarial Model. This table summarizes our analysis of evidence collection from an adversarial perspective. We identify three primary types of evidence that moderators typically gather during investigations. From this, we surface five key design challenges rooted in the inquisitorial nature of current online reporting systems, which would then benefit fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Design Space for Information Visibility. These design ideas illustrate varying levels of information visibility beyond fully hiding or fully revealing content. (1) Only metadata like the sender and timestamp is shown. (2) Custom attributes, such as sentiment and message length, are displayed. (3) An LLM answers an open-ended question, e.g., “To what extent is this message harassing?”, while constrained to avoid refe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This diagram illustrates how a redaction tool can support varying degrees of user control. (1) Automated Redac￾tion. An algorithm automatically detects and redacts sensitive information using a generic label. While this approach limits user manipulation, it may fail to…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Complementary Designs to Prevent Selective Disclosure. Granting users more control in evidence disclosure increases the risk of selective disclosure. To prevent such abuse, we propose two complementary designs that involve the reporting person or bystanders. Progressiv…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Authentication by Platforms through Forwarding Messages from Moderators’ Perspective. (Left) This example shows how message forwarding can be repurposed to support platform-side authentication. The interface should indicate the message’s forwarded status and display ac…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ephemeral Reporting for Voice Chats. This figure illustrates how users can report content from ephemeral voice conversa￾tions. To respect privacy expectations, only recent audio segments are available for reporting, while older ones are automatically deleted. Each repo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ruba Abu-Salma, M Angela Sasse, Joseph Bonneau, Anastasia Danilova, Alena Naiakshina, and Matthew Smith. 2017. Obstacles to the adoption of secure communication tools. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 137–153

    2017

  2. [2]

    Mark S Ackerman, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Joseph Reagle. 1999. Privacy in e-commerce: examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . 1–8

    1999

  3. [3]

    https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content- moderation/

    Adrian Chen. 2014. The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics And Beheadings Out Of Your Facebook Feed. "https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content- moderation/". [Online; accessed 18-Jan-2023]

    2014

  4. [4]

    Max Aliapoulios, Kejsi Take, Prashanth Ramakrishna, Daniel Borkan, Beth Goldberg, Jeffrey Sorensen, Anna Turner, Rachel Greenstadt, Tobias Lauinger, and Damon McCoy. 2021. A large-scale characterization of online incitements to harassment across platforms. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 621–638

    2021

  5. [5]

    PEN America. 2023. Shouting into the Void: Why Reporting Abuse to Social Media Platforms Is So Hard and How to Fix It. https://pen.org/report/ shouting-into-the-void/

    2023

  6. [6]

    Yann Aouidef, Federico Ast, and Bruno Deffains. 2021. Decentralized justice: A comparative analysis of blockchain online dispute resolution projects. Frontiers in Blockchain 4 (2021), 564551

    2021

  7. [7]

    Arasu Arun, Joseph Bonneau, and Jeremy Clark. 2022. Short-lived zero-knowledge proofs and signatures. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security . Springer, 487–516

    2022

  8. [8]

    Zahra Ashktorab and Jessica Vitak. 2016. Designing cyberbullying mitigation and prevention solutions through participatory design with teenagers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 3895–3905

    2016

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    Amna Batool, Mustafa Naseem, and Kentaro Toyama. 2024. Expanding Concepts of Non-Consensual Image-Disclosure Abuse: A Study of NCIDA in Pakistan. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2024

  2. [10]

    Gabrielle Beck, Arka Rai Choudhuri, Matthew Green, Abhishek Jain, and Pratyush Ranjan Tiwari. 2023. Time-deniable signatures. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Monika Bickert. 2018. Publishing our internal enforcement guidelines and expanding our appeals process. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/ comprehensive-community-standards/

    2018

  4. [12]

    Asia J Biega, Peter Potash, Hal Daumé, Fernando Diaz, and Michèle Finck. 2020. Operationalizing the legal principle of data minimization for personalization. In Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval . 399–408

    2020

  5. [13]

    Jeremy Blackburn and Haewoon Kwak. 2014. STFU NOOB! predicting crowdsourced decisions on toxic behavior in online games. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web . 877–888. 25 CSCW’26, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Wang Leijie et al

    2014

  6. [14]

    Lindsay Blackwell, Nicole Ellison, Natasha Elliott-Deflo, and Raz Schwartz. 2019. Harassment in social virtual reality: Challenges for platform governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–25

    2019

  7. [15]

    BleepingComputer. 2021. Signal now lets you report and block spam messages. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/signal-now- lets-you-report-and-block-spam-messages/

    2021

  8. [16]

    John Braithwaite et al. 2002. Restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. CRIMINAL LA W BULLETIN-BOSTON-38, 2 (2002), 244–262

    2002

  9. [17]

    Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, Nikki Hayfield, and Gareth Terry. 2019. Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, Pranee Liamputtong (Ed.). Springer Singapore, Singapore, 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Jie Cai and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2021. After violation but before sanction: Understanding volunteer moderators’ profiling processes toward violators in live streaming communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  11. [19]

    Pew Research Center. 2017. Nearly half of those who have been harassed online know their harasser. https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2017/08/08/nearly-half-of-those-who-have-been-harassed-online-know-their-harasser/

    2017

  12. [20]

    Pew Research Center. 2021. The State of Online Harassment. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/

    2021

  13. [21]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A Cross-Community Learning-based System to Assist Reddit Moderators. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (nov 2019), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3359276

    2019

  14. [22]

    Long Chen and Qiang Tang. 2018. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones: targeted opening message franking schemes.Cryptology ePrint Archive (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Quan Ze Chen and Amy X Zhang. 2023. Case Law Grounding: Using Precedents to Align Decision-Making for Humans and AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07019 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Richard Chow, Ian Oberst, and Jessica Staddon. 2009. Sanitization’s slippery slope: the design and study of a text revision assistant. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security . 1–11

    2009

  17. [25]

    Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie. 2016. What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society 18, 3 (2016), 410–428

    2016

  18. [26]

    Susan Daicoff. 2006. Law as a healing profession: The comprehensive law movement. Pepp. Disp. Resol. LJ 6 (2006), 1

    2006

  19. [27]

    Mirjan Damaska. 1972. Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: a comparative study. U. Pa. L. Rev. 121 (1972), 506

    1972

  20. [28]

    Mirjan R Damaska. 1986. The faces of justice and state authority: a comparative approach to the legal process . Yale University Press

    1986

  21. [29]

    Discord. [n. d.]. Best Practices for Reporting Tools. https://discord.com/community/best-practices-for-reporting-tools [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  22. [30]

    Discord. [n. d.]. What is Discord. https://discord.com/safety/360044149331-what-is-discord. [Online; accessed 28-Jan-2023]

    2023

  23. [31]

    Discord. 2022. Best Practices for Reporting Tools. https://discord.com/moderation/4405231390231-206-best-practices-for-reporting-tools [Online; accessed 28-Jan-2023]

    2022

  24. [32]

    Cory Doctorow. [n. d.]. African WhatsApp Modders are the Masters of Worldwide Adversarial Interoperability. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/ 2020/03/african-whatsapp-modders-are-masters-worldwide-adversarial-interoperability [Online; accessed 13-May-2025]

    2020

  25. [33]

    David M Douglas. 2016. Doxing: A conceptual analysis. Ethics and information technology 18, 3 (2016), 199–210

    2016

  26. [34]

    Ksenia Ermoshina, Francesca Musiani, and Harry Halpin. 2016. End-to-end encrypted messaging protocols: An overview. In Internet Science: Third International Conference, INSCI 2016, Florence, Italy, September 12-14, 2016, Proceedings 3 . Springer, 244–254

    2016

  27. [35]

    FaceBook. [n. d.]. Report a conversation on Messenger. https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/833709093422928 [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  28. [36]

    FaceBook. 2017. Messenger Secret Conversations: Technical Whitepaper. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/messenger-secret- conversations-technical-whitepaper.pdf

    2017

  29. [37]

    Jenny Fan and Amy X Zhang. 2020. Digital juries: A civics-oriented approach to platform governance. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2020

  30. [38]

    Keith A Findley. 2011. Adversarial inquisitions: Rethinking the search for the truth. NYL Sch. L. Rev. 56 (2011), 911

    2011

  31. [39]

    Thomson Reuters Foundation. 2022. Thomson Reuters Foundation launches new tool to protect journalists against online violence. https: //www.trust.org/2022/06/30/thomson-reuters-foundation-launches-new-tool-to-protect-journalists-against-online-violence-2/

    2022

  32. [40]

    Guo Freeman, Samaneh Zamanifard, Divine Maloney, and Dane Acena. 2022. Disturbing the peace: Experiencing and mitigating emerging harassment in social virtual reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–30

    2022

  33. [41]

    Arie Freiberg. 2001. Problem-oriented courts: Innovative solutions to intractable problems? Journal of judicial administration 11, 1 (2001), 8–27

    2001

  34. [42]

    Eric Gilbert. 2015. Open Book: A Socially-inspired Cloaking Technique that Uses Lexical Abstraction to Transform Messages. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 477–486

    2015

  35. [43]

    Sarah A Gilbert. 2023. Towards Intersectional Moderation: An Alternative Model of Moderation Built on Care and Power. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11250 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Giuliano Giova et al. 2011. Improving chain of custody in forensic investigation of electronic digital systems. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 11, 1 (2011), 1–9

    2011

  37. [45]

    Google. [n. d.]. Block & report a space on Google Chat. https://support.google.com/chat/answer/9919320?sjid=844137216848673214-NC [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]. 26 From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems CSCW’26, June 03–05, ...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Nitesh Goyal, Leslie Park, and Lucy Vasserman. 2022. ” You have to prove the threat is real”: Understanding the needs of Female Journalists and Activists to Document and Report Online Harassment. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–17

    2022

  39. [47]

    Paul Grubbs, Jiahui Lu, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2017. Message franking via committing authenticated encryption. In Advances in Cryptology– CRYPTO 2017: 37th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 20–24, 2017, Proceedings, Part III 37 . Spring...

    2017

  40. [48]

    The Guardian. 2021. WhatsApp criticised for plan to let messages disappear after 24 hours. The Guardian (6 dec 2021). https://www.theguardian. com/world/2021/dec/06/whatsapp-criticised-for-plan-to-allow-messages-to-disappear-after-24-hours Accessed: March 25, 2025

    2021

  41. [49]

    Aditi Gupta, Hemank Lamba, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Anupam Joshi. 2013. Faking sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on twitter during hurricane sandy. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web . 729–736

    2013

  42. [50]

    Aaron Halfaker and R Stuart Geiger. 2020. Ores: Lowering barriers with participatory machine learning in wikipedia. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–37

    2020

  43. [51]

    Amy A Hasinoff, Anna D Gibson, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. The promise of restorative justice in addressing online harm. (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Nicola Henry, Clare McGlynn, Asher Flynn, Kelly Johnson, Anastasia Powell, and Adrian J Scott. 2020. Image-based sexual abuse: A study on the causes and consequences of non-consensual nude or sexual imagery . Routledge

    2020

  45. [53]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. 2025. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Info...

    2025

  46. [54]

    Sohyeon Hwang, Charles Kiene, Serene Ong, and Aaron Shaw. 2024. Adopting third-party bots for managing online communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–26

    2024

  47. [55]

    Jane Im, Jill Dimond, Melody Berton, Una Lee, Katherine Mustelier, Mark S Ackerman, and Eric Gilbert. 2021. Yes: Affirmative consent as a theoretical framework for understanding and imagining social platforms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in compu...

    2021

  48. [56]

    Jane Im, Sarita Schoenebeck, Marilyn Iriarte, Gabriel Grill, Daricia Wilkinson, Amna Batool, Rahaf Alharbi, Audrey Funwie, Tergel Gankhuu, Eric Gilbert, et al. 2022. Women’s perspectives on harm and justice after online harassment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inte...

    2022

  49. [57]

    Jane Im, Sonali Tandon, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Taylor Denby, and Eric Gilbert. 2020. Synthesized social signals: Computationally-derived social signals from account histories. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2020

  50. [58]

    Jane Im, Amy X Zhang, Christopher J Schilling, and David Karger. 2018. Deliberation and resolution on wikipedia: A case study of requests for comments. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–24

    2018

  51. [59]

    Shagun Jhaver, Seth Frey, and Amy X Zhang. 2023. Decentralizing platform power: A design space of multi-level governance in online social platforms. Social Media+ Society 9, 4 (2023), 20563051231207857

    2023

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Charles Kiene, Skyler Middler, Jed R Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler. 2019. Moderation challenges in voice-based online communities on discord. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  54. [62]

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Peipei Nie, Jed R Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. A trade-off-centered framework of content moderation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 1 (2023), 1–34

    2023

  55. [63]

    Seny Kamara, Mallory Knodel, Emma Llansó, Greg Nojeim, Lucy Qin, Dhanaraj Thakur, and Caitlin Vogus. 2022. Outside looking in: Approaches to content moderation in end-to-end encrypted systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04617 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Charles Kiene, Jialun Aaron Jiang, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2019. Technological frames and user innovation: Exploring technological change in community moderation teams. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  57. [65]

    Chulyoung Kim. 2014. Adversarial and inquisitorial procedures with information acquisition. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 30, 4 (2014), 767–803

    2014

  58. [66]

    Vinay Koshy, Frederick Choi, Yi-Shyuan Chiang, Hari Sundaram, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Karrie Karahalios. 2024. Venire: A Machine Learning-Guided Panel Review System for Community Content Moderation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23448 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Christopher Kotfila. 2014. This message will self-destruct: The growing role of obscurity and self-destructing data in digital communication. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 40, 2 (2014), 12–16

    2014

  60. [68]

    Yubo Kou and Xinning Gui. 2021. Flag and Flaggability in Automated Moderation: The Case of Reporting Toxic Behavior in an Online Game Community. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2021

  61. [69]

    Yubo Kou and Bonnie A Nardi. 2014. Governance in League of Legends: A hybrid system. FDG 7, 1 (2014), 9

    2014

  62. [70]

    Anunay Kulshrestha and Jonathan Mayer. 2021. Identifying harmful media in{End-to-End} encrypted communication: Efficient private membership computation. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21) . 893–910

    2021

  63. [71]

    Junzuo Lai, Gongxian Zeng, Zhengan Huang, Siu Ming Yiu, Xin Mu, and Jian Weng. 2023. Asymmetric group message franking: Definitions and constructions. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques . Springer, 67–97

    2023

  64. [72]

    Cliff Lampe and Paul Resnick. 2004. Slash (dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 543–550. 27 CSCW’26, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Wang Leijie et al

    2004

  65. [73]

    Justia US Law. [n. d.]. Procedural Due Process Civil. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-procedural-due-process-civil.html [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  66. [74]

    Anti-Defamation League. 2022. Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2022. https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2022- 09/Online-Hate-and-Harassment-Survey-2022.pdf

    2022

  67. [75]

    Iraklis Leontiadis and Serge Vaudenay. 2023. Private message franking with after opening privacy. In International Conference on Information and Communications Security. Springer, 197–214

    2023

  68. [76]

    Gerald S Leventhal. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Social exchange: Advances in theory and research . Springer, 27–55

    1980

  69. [77]

    Sharon Levy, Robert E Kraut, Jane A Yu, Kristen M Altenburger, and Yi-Chia Wang. 2022. Understanding conflicts in online conversations. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 . 2592–2602

    2022

  70. [78]

    Zhehui Liao, Hanwen Zhao, Ayush Kulkarni, Shaan Singh Chattrath, and Amy X Zhang. 2025. Building Proactive and Instant-Reactive Safety Designs to Address Harassment in Social Virtual Reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05781 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    E Allan Lind, John Thibaut, and Laurens Walker. 1973. Discovery and presentation of evidence in adversary and nonadversary proceedings. Michigan Law Review 71, 6 (1973), 1129–1144

    1973

  72. [80]

    Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Zihao Wang, Xiaofeng Wang, Tianwei Zhang, Yepang Liu, Haoyu Wang, Yan Zheng, et al. 2023. Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05499 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Hana Machackova, Alena Cerna, Anna Sevcikova, Lenka Dedkova, and Kristian Daneback. 2013. Effectiveness of coping strategies for victims of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 7, 3 (2013)

    2013

  74. [82]

    J Nathan Matias, Amy Johnson, Whitney Erin Boesel, Brian Keegan, Jaclyn Friedman, and Charlie DeTar. 2015. Reporting, reviewing, and responding to harassment on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.03359 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Matrix. 2022. Moderation in Matrix. https://matrix.org/docs/older/moderation/. [Online; accessed 28-Jan-2023]

    2022

  76. [84]

    Linda Moore and Eilish McAuliffe. 2012. To report or not to report? Why some nurses are reluctant to whistleblow. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 17, 4 (2012), 332–342

    2012

  77. [85]

    You Have to Ignore the Dangers

    Collins W Munyendo, Kentrell Owens, Faith Strong, Shaoqi Wang, Adam J Aviv, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Franziska Roesner. 2024. " You Have to Ignore the Dangers": User Perceptions of the Security and Privacy Benefits of WhatsApp Mods. In 2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (...

    2024

  78. [86]

    Bich Ngoc, Joseph Seering, et al . 2025. The Design Space for Online Restorative Justice Tools: A Case Study with ApoloBot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18861 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    Law Reform Commission of Western Australia and Wayne Martin. 1999. Review of the criminal and civil justice system in Western Australia . The Commission

    1999

  80. [88]

    Tribhuvanesh Orekondy, Mario Fritz, and Bernt Schiele. 2018. Connecting pixels to privacy and utility: Automatic redaction of private information in images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 8466–8475

    2018

  81. [89]

    Christina A Pan, Sahil Yakhmi, Tara P Iyer, Evan Strasnick, Amy X Zhang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2022. Comparing the perceived legitimacy of content moderation processes: Contractors, algorithms, expert panels, and digital juries. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inte...

    2022

  82. [90]

    Alistair Pattison and Nicholas Hopper. 2023. Committee Moderation on Encrypted Messaging Platforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01241 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Riana Pfefferkorn. 2022. Content-oblivious trust and safety techniques: Results from a survey of online service providers. Journal of Online Trust and Safety 1, 2 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Kevin Pu, Jim Yang, Angel Yuan, Minyi Ma, Rui Dong, Xinyu Wang, Yan Chen, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Dilogics: Creating web automation programs with diverse logics. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–15

    2023

  85. [93]

    Li Qiwei, Shihui Zhang, Samantha Paige Pratt, Andrew Timothy Kasper, Eric Gilbert, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2024. A Law of One’s Own: The Inefficacy of the DMCA for Non-Consensual Intimate Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13575 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Anamika Rajendran, Tarun Kumar Yadav, Malek Al-Jbour, Francisco Manuel Mares Solano, Kent Seamons, and Joshua Reynolds. 2024. Deniable Encrypted Messaging: User Understanding after Hands-on Social Experience. In Proceedings of the 2024 European Symposium on Usable Security . 155–171

    2024

  87. [95]

    Reddit. [n. d.]. Transparency Report 2019. https://redditinc.com/policies/transparency-report-2019 [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2019

  88. [96]

    Protection Regulation. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Regulation (eu) 679 (2016), 2016

    2016

  89. [97]

    Sarah T Roberts. 2016. Commercial content moderation: Digital laborers’ dirty work. In The Intersectional Internet: Race, Sex, Class and Culture Online. Peter Lang Publishing

    2016

  90. [98]

    Colin Rule. 2016. Designing a Global Online Dispute Resolution System: Lessons Learned from eBay. U. St. Thomas LJ 13 (2016), 354

    2016

  91. [99]

    Colin Rule and Chittu Nagarajan. 2010. Leveraging the wisdom of the crowds: The eBay community court and the future of online dispute resolution. ACResolution Magazine (2010), 4–7

    2010

  92. [100]

    Ronald J Rychlak and John M Czarnetzky. 1996. Documentary Evidence in Civil Cases. Am. J. Trial Advoc. 20 (1996), 607

    1996

  93. [101]

    Mohamed Sabt, Mohammed Achemlal, and Abdelmadjid Bouabdallah. 2015. Trusted execution environment: What it is, and what it is not. In 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/Ispa, Vol. 1. IEEE, 57–64

    2015

  94. [102]

    Rudolf B Schlesinger. 1963. Elements of Civil Procedure: Cases and Materials. 28 From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems CSCW’26, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY

    1963

  95. [103]

    Nathan Schneider. 2022. Admins, mods, and benevolent dictators for life: The implicit feudalism of online communities. New Media & Society 24, 9 (2022), 1965–1985

    2022

  96. [104]

    Theodor Schnitzler, Christine Utz, Florian M Farke, Christina Pöpper, and Markus Dürmuth. 2020. Exploring user perceptions of deletion in mobile instant messaging applications. Journal of Cybersecurity 6, 1 (2020), tyz016

    2020

  97. [105]

    Sarita Schoenebeck, Oliver L Haimson, and Lisa Nakamura. 2021. Drawing from justice theories to support targets of online harassment. new media & society 23, 5 (2021), 1278–1300

    2021

  98. [106]

    Sarita Schoenebeck, Cliff Lampe, and Penny Trieu. 2023. Online harassment: Assessing harms and remedies. Social Media+ Society 9, 1 (2023), 20563051231157297

    2023

  99. [107]

    Cornell Law School. [n. d.]. 18 U.S. Code § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1513 [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  100. [108]

    Joseph Seering. 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 (2020), 1–28

    2020

  101. [109]

    Joseph Seering, Tony Wang, Jina Yoon, and Geoff Kaufman. 2019. Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms. New media & society 21, 7 (2019), 1417–1443

    2019

  102. [110]

    Justin Sevier. 2014. The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 20, 2 (2014), 212

    2014

  103. [111]

    Yunhee Shim and Shagun Jhaver. 2024. Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08498 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Signal. [n. d.]. How to Forward Messages. https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360049290551-Forward [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  105. [113]

    Slack. [n. d.]. Join a Slack workspace. https://slack.com/help/articles/212675257-Join-a-Slack-workspace. [Online; accessed 28-Jan-2023]

    2023

  106. [114]

    Peter Snyder, Periwinkle Doerfler, Chris Kanich, and Damon McCoy. 2017. Fifteen minutes of unwanted fame: Detecting and characterizing doxing. In proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference . 432–444

    2017

  107. [115]

    Michael Specter, Sunoo Park, and Matthew Green. 2019. Keyforge: Mitigating email breaches with forward-forgeable signatures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.06425 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Tom Stacy. 1991. The Search for the Truth in Constitutional Criminal Procedure. Colum. L. Rev. 91 (1991), 1369

    1991

  109. [117]

    Sharifa Sultana, Mitrasree Deb, Ananya Bhattacharjee, Shaid Hasan, SM Raihanul Alam, Trishna Chakraborty, Prianka Roy, Samira Fairuz Ahmed, Aparna Moitra, M Ashraful Amin, et al. 2021. ‘unmochon’: A tool to combat online sexual harassment over facebook messenger. In Proceeding...

    2021

  110. [118]

    Haochen Sun, Jason Li, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024. zkllm: Zero knowledge proofs for large language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security . 4405–4419

    2024

  111. [119]

    Kejsi Take, Victoria Zhong, Chris Geeng, Emmi Bevensee, Damon McCoy, and Rachel Greenstadt. 2024. Stoking the Flames: Understanding Escalation in an Online Harassment Community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–23

    2024

  112. [120]

    Telegram. [n. d.]. How To Report Someone On Telegram. https://www.qqtube.com/blog/how-to-report-someone-on-telegram [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  113. [121]

    John Thibaut and Laurens Walker. 1978. A theory of procedure. Calif. L. Rev. 66 (1978), 541

    1978

  114. [122]

    John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, Stephen LaTour, and Pauline Houlden. 1973. Procedural justice as fairness. Stan. L. Rev. 26 (1973), 1271

    1973

  115. [123]

    John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, and E Allan Lind. 1972. Adversary presentation and bias in legal decisionmaking. Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1972), 386

    1972

  116. [124]

    John W Thibaut and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. (No Title) (1975)

    1975

  117. [125]

    Kurt Thomas, Devdatta Akhawe, Michael Bailey, Dan Boneh, Elie Bursztein, Sunny Consolvo, Nicola Dell, Zakir Durumeric, Patrick Gage Kelley, Deepak Kumar, et al. 2021. Sok: Hate, harassment, and the changing landscape of online abuse. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Priv...

    2021

  118. [126]

    Thorn. 2021. Responding to Online Threats: Minors’ Perspectives on Disclosing, Reporting, and Blocking. https://info.thorn.org/hubfs/Research/ Responding%20to%20Online%20Threats_2021-Full-Report.pdf

    2021

  119. [127]

    Nirvan Tyagi, Paul Grubbs, Julia Len, Ian Miers, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2019. Asymmetric message franking: Content moderation for metadata- private end-to-end encryption. In Advances in Cryptology–CRYPTO 2019: 39th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA,...

    2019

  120. [128]

    Tom R Tyler. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and justice 30 (2003), 283–357

    2003

  121. [129]

    Tom R Tyler. 2006. Why people obey the law . Princeton university press

    2006

  122. [130]

    Gerald Walpin. 2003. America’s adversarial and jury systems: More likely to do justice. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y 26 (2003), 175

    2003

  123. [131]

    Is Reporting Worth the Sacrifice of Revealing What I’ve Sent?

    Leijie Wang, Ruotong Wang, Sterling Williams-Ceci, Sanketh Menda, and Amy X Zhang. 2023. " Is Reporting Worth the Sacrifice of Revealing What I’ve Sent?": Privacy Considerations When Reporting on{End-to-End} Encrypted Platforms. In Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Se...

    2023

  124. [132]

    WeChat. [n. d.]. To make a report against content in a chat or group chat. https://safety.wechat.com/en_US/enforcement/reporting/to-make-a- report-against-content-in-a-chat-or-group-chat [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]

    2025

  125. [133]

    David B Wexler. 1992. Putting mental health into mental health law: Therapeutic jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior 16, 1 (1992), 27–38

    1992

  126. [134]

    WhatsApp. [n. d.]. How to Forward Messages. https://faq.whatsapp.com/887468535575482/ [Online; accessed 13-Apr-2025]. 29 CSCW’26, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Wang Leijie et al

    2025

  127. [135]

    https://blog.whatsapp.com/communities-now-available

    WhatsApp. 2022. Communities Now Available! "https://blog.whatsapp.com/communities-now-available". Online; accessed 28-Jan-2023

    2022

  128. [136]

    WhatsApp. 2022. How to block and report contacts. https://faq.whatsapp.com/1142481766359885/?cms_platform=android. Online; accessed 28-Jan-2023

    2022

  129. [137]

    Sijia Xiao, Shagun Jhaver, and Niloufar Salehi. 2023. Addressing interpersonal harm in online gaming communities: The opportunities and challenges for a restorative justice approach. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 6 (2023), 1–36

    2023

  130. [138]

    Wenjun Xiong and Robert Lagerström. 2019. Threat modeling–A systematic literature review. Computers & security 84 (2019), 53–69

    2019

  131. [139]

    Tarun Kumar Yadav, Devashish Gosain, and Kent Seamons. 2023. Cryptographic deniability: A multi-perspective study of user perceptions and expectations. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) . 3637–3654

    2023

  132. [140]

    Tom Yeh, Tsung-Hsiang Chang, and Robert C Miller. 2009. Sikuli: using GUI screenshots for search and automation. InProceedings of the 22nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 183–192

    2009

  133. [141]

    Amy X Zhang, Grant Hugh, and Michael S Bernstein. 2020. PolicyKit: building governance in online communities. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 365–378

    2020

  134. [142]

    It’s a Fair Game

    Zhiping Zhang, Michelle Jia, Hao-Ping Lee, Bingsheng Yao, Sauvik Das, Ada Lerner, Dakuo Wang, and Tianshi Li. 2024. “It’s a Fair Game”, or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2024 C...

    2024

  135. [143]

    Lilei Zheng, Ying Zhang, and Vrizlynn LL Thing. 2019. A survey on image tampering and its detection in real-world photos. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 58 (2019), 380–399. 30

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.