Search for: All records

Describing Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) to the general public is challenging but essential to convey the privacy protections they provide. Existing research has explored the explanation of differential privacy in health contexts. Our study adapts well-performing textual descriptions of local differential privacy from prior work to a new context and broadens the investigation to the descriptions of additional PETs. Specifically, we develop user-centric textual descriptions for popular PETs in ad tracking and analytics, including local differential privacy, federated learning with and without local differential privacy, and Google's Topics. We examine the applicability of previous findings to these expanded contexts, and evaluate the PET descriptions with quantitative and qualitative survey data (n=306). We find that adapting a process- and implications-focused approach to the ad tracking and analytics context achieved similar effects in facilitating user understanding compared to health contexts, and that our descriptions developed with this process+implications approach for the additional, understudied PETs help users understand PETs' processes. We also find that incorporating an implications statement into PET descriptions did not hurt user comprehension but also did not achieve a significant positive effect, which contrasts prior findings in health contexts. We note that the use of technical terms as well as the machine learning aspect of PETs, even without delving into specifics, led to confusion for some respondents. Based on our findings, we offer recommendations and insights for crafting effective user-centric descriptions of privacy-enhancing technologies. 

As content moderation becomes a central aspect of all social media platforms and online communities, interest has grown in how to make moderation decisions contestable. On social media platforms where individual communities moderate their own activities, the responsibility to address user appeals falls on volunteers from within the community. While there is a growing body of work devoted to understanding and supporting the volunteer moderators' workload, little is known about their practice of handling user appeals. Through a collaborative and iterative design process with Reddit moderators, we found that moderators spend considerable effort in investigating user ban appeals and desired to directly engage with users and retain their agency over each decision. To fulfill their needs, we designed and built AppealMod, a system that induces friction in the appeals process by asking users to provide additional information before their appeals are reviewed by human moderators. In addition to giving moderators more information, we expected the friction in the appeal process would lead to a selection effect among users, with many insincere and toxic appeals being abandoned before getting any attention from human moderators. To evaluate our system, we conducted a randomized field experiment in a Reddit community of over 29 million users that lasted for four months. As a result of the selection effect, moderators viewed only 30% of initial appeals and less than 10% of the toxically worded appeals; yet they granted roughly the same number of appeals when compared with the control group. Overall, our system is effective at reducing moderator workload and minimizing their exposure to toxic content while honoring their preference for direct engagement and agency in appeals. 

Past work has explored various ways for online platforms to leverage crowd wisdom for misinformation detection and moderation. Yet, platforms often relegate governance to their communities, and limited research has been done from the perspective of these communities and their moderators. How is misinformation currently moderated in online communities that are heavily self-governed? What role does the crowd play in this process, and how can this process be improved? In this study, we answer these questions through semi-structured interviews with Reddit moderators. We focus on a case study of COVID-19 misinformation. First, our analysis identifies a general moderation workflow model encompassing various processes participants use for handling COVID-19 misinformation. Further, we show that the moderation workflow revolves around three elements: content facticity, user intent, and perceived harm. Next, our interviews reveal that Reddit moderators rely on two types of crowd wisdom for misinformation detection. Almost all participants are heavily reliant on reports from crowds of ordinary users to identify potential misinformation. A second crowd--participants' own moderation teams and expert moderators of other communities--provide support when participants encounter difficult, ambiguous cases. Finally, we use design probes to better understand how different types of crowd signals---from ordinary users and moderators---readily available on Reddit can assist moderators with identifying misinformation. We observe that nearly half of all participants preferred these cues over labels from expert fact-checkers because these cues can help them discern user intent. Additionally, a quarter of the participants distrust professional fact-checkers, raising important concerns about misinformation moderation. 

Social media platforms aspire to create online experiences where users can participate safely and equitably. However, women around the world experience widespread online harassment, including insults, stalking, aggression, threats, and non-consensual sharing of sexual photos. This article describes women's perceptions of harm associated with online harassment and preferred platform responses to that harm. We conducted a survey in 14 geographic regions around the world (N = 3,993), focusing on regions whose perspectives have been insufficiently elevated in social media governance decisions (e.g. Mongolia, Cameroon). Results show that, on average, women perceive greater harm associated with online harassment than men, especially for non-consensual image sharing. Women also prefer most platform responses compared to men, especially removing content and banning users; however, women are less favorable towards payment as a response. Addressing global gender-based violence online requires understanding how women experience online harms and how they wish for it to be addressed. This is especially important given that the people who build and govern technology are not typically those who are most likely to experience online harms.