Cited by 57Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 274 of the 280 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SoK: Content Moderation in Social Media, from Guidelines to Enforcement, and Research to Practice

Open access
Singhal, Mohit, Ling, Chen, Paudel, Pujan, Thota, Poojitha, Kumarswamy, Nihal, Stringhini, Gianluca, Nilizadeh, Shirin·2023·2023 IEEE 8th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)

Abstract

Social media platforms have been establishing content moderation guidelines and employing various moderation policies to counter hate speech and misinformation. The goal of this paper is to study these community guidelines and moderation practices, as well as the relevant research publications, to identify the research gaps, differences in moderation techniques, and challenges that should be tackled by the social media platforms and the research community. To this end, we study and analyze fourteen most popular social media content moderation guidelines and practices, and consolidate them. We then introduce three taxonomies drawn from this analysis as well as covering over two hundred interdisciplinary research papers about moderation strategies. We identify the differences between the content moderation employed in mainstream and fringe social media platforms. Finally, we have in-depth applied discussions on both research and practical challenges and solutions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/eurosp57164.2023.00056

Cites

274 of 274 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 280 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 4chan Rules
  2. Civic integrity policy
  3. COVID-19 misleading information policy
  4. Notices on Twitter and what they mean
  5. Parler Community Guidelines
  6. Violent organizations policy
  7. 1996, 47 U.S. Code §230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
  8. 2012, Contest, Sweepstakes, and Giveaway Guidelines
  9. 2014, The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics, and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed
  10. 2016, Recital 71 - Profiling
  11. 2017, Automation rules
  12. 2017, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube Announce Formation of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism
  13. 2018, 2018 was the year we (sort of) cleaned up the internet
  14. 2018, Deplatforming Works
  15. 2018, Gab, the Social Media Site for the Alt-Right, Gets Deplatformed
  16. 2018, Inside Facebook’s Fast-Growing Content-Moderation Effort
  17. 2019, Facebook Bans White Nationalism, and White Separatism
  18. 2019, Facebook while black: Users call it getting ’Zucked,’ say talking about racism is censored as hate speech
  19. 2019, Here’s What Happens When News Comes With a Nutrition Label
  20. 2019, Inside MeWe, Where Anti-Vaxxers and Conspiracy Theorists Thrive
  21. 2019, Most conservatives believe removing content and comments on social media is suppressing free speech
  22. 2019, Snapchat fact-checks political ads, unlike Facebook, says CEO Evan Spiegel
  23. 2019, The Downfall of Alex Jones Shows How the Internet Can Be Saved
  24. 2019, YouTube’s arbitrary standards: Stars keep making money even after breaking the rules
  25. 2020, Black Lives Matter Activists Say They’re Being Silenced By Facebook
  26. 2020, Fact-Checked on Facebook and Twitter, Conservatives Switch Their Apps
  27. 2020, Here’s how we’re using AI to help detect misinformation
  28. 2020, How Facebook uses super-efficient AI models to detect hate speech
  29. 2020, Parler, mewe, gab gain momentum as conservative social media alternatives in post-trump age
  30. 2020, Right-wing users flock to Parler as social media giants rein in misinformation
  31. 2020, Why some Americans are trading in mainstream social networks for ones that tout “freedom of speech”
  32. 2021, Appealing Content Decisions on Facebook or Instagram
  33. 2021, Elaboration-on-Guidelines
  34. 2021, Parler, a Platform Favored by Trump Fans, Struggles for Survival
  35. 2021, Parler Ban: Employees At Apple, Google, And Amazon Back Booting Far-Right Platform
  36. 2021, Parler will be hate speech–free — on iOS only
  37. 2021, Reddit Quarantines AntiMask Antivax Subreddit
  38. 2021, Restricting accounts
  39. 2021, What is Gab? The far-right social media site that Google and Apple banned and that is still gaining thousands of new users after Twitter and Facebook deplatformed Trump
  40. 2021, YouTube Community Guidelines enforcement
  41. 2022, About suspended accounts
  42. 2022, Facebook’s Ukraine-Russia Moderation Rules Prompt Cries of Double Standard
  43. 2022, How Instagram Is Failing Protesters in Iran
  44. 2022, How Rumble, a Toronto-based YouTube alternative, became a refuge for the MAGA crowd (with a US$2-billion valuation)
  45. 2022, I don’t think Facebook should have taken down my post
  46. 2022, Iran’s protests pose a challenge for Washington, and Silicon Valley
  47. 2022, Meta changes Ukraine content moderation policy to ban death threats against heads of state
  48. 2022, Meta withdraws Ukraine war content policy guidance request
  49. 2023, Why India banned TikTok — and what the US can learn from it, as pressure mounts for Biden to follow suit
  50. 2015, Australia esafety commissioner
  51. Benson, 2022, Twitter to label all state-affiliated Russia media
  52. Blunt, 2020, Posting into the void: studying the impact of shadowbanning on sex workers and activists, Hacking/Hustling, 1
  53. 2018, Content or context moderation? artisanal, community-reliant, and industrial approaches [white paper]. data & society
  54. 10.18653/v1/n19–1423 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Díaz, 2021, Double standards in social media content moderation
  56. 2017, Network enforcement act, netzdg
  57. Hosseinimotlagh, Unsupervised content-based identification of fake news articles with tensor decomposition ensembles
  58. 2018, Human Rights Watch. Germany: Flawed social media law
  59. Hwang, Does civility matter in the blogosphere? examining the interaction effects of incivility and disagreement on citizen attitudes
  60. Kumarswamy, 2022, “Strict Moderation?” The Impact of Increased Moderation on Parler Content and User Behavior
  61. 10.1109/INFOCOM42981.2021.9488792 · DOI
  62. Lu, “positive energy” perceptions and attitudes towards covid-19 information on social media in china, 5, 1
  63. Matias, The civic labor of online moderators
  64. 2021, Information technology(intermediary guidelines and digital media ethics code) rules
  65. 2021, Information technology(intermediary guidelines and digital media ethics code) rules
  66. Suzor, 2019, What do we mean when we talk about transparency? toward meaningful transparency in commercial content moderation, International Journal of Communication, 13, 18
  67. 2021, Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17)
  68. 10.48550/arxiv.1705.00648 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Singhal, M., Ling, C., Paudel, P., Thota, P., Kumarswamy, N., Stringhini, G., & Nilizadeh, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Venue
2023 IEEE 8th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-07
Pages
868-895
OpenAlex
W4385412489
Cited by
57
References
280
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8
FWCI
10.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (publishedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Boston University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
content moderation, hate speech, misinformation, research gaps

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review