Online Harassment and Content Moderation: The Case of Blocklists
Abstract
Online harassment is a complex and growing problem. On Twitter, one mechanism people use to avoid harassment is the blocklist , a list of accounts that are preemptively blocked from interacting with a subscriber. In this article, we present a rich description of Twitter blocklists – why they are needed, how they work, and their strengths and weaknesses in practice. Next, we use blocklists to interrogate online harassment – the forms it takes, as well as tactics used by harassers. Specifically, we interviewed both people who use blocklists to protect themselves, and people who are blocked by blocklists. We find that users are not adequately protected from harassment, and at the same time, many people feel that they are blocked unnecessarily and unfairly. Moreover, we find that not all users agree on what constitutes harassment. Based on our findings, we propose design interventions for social network sites with the aim of protecting people from harassment, while preserving freedom of speech.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Previous research on Twitter blocklists found that some users who had been added to blocklists did not understand why they were there, were not able to change their status, and suffered reputational harms.
“previous research on Twitter blocklists found that some users who had been added to blocklists didn't understand why they were there, were not able to change their status, and suffered reputational harms (Jhaver et al., 2018;Wheatley & Vatnoey, 2020)”
From Stuck in the middleware with you: the challenges of capitalizing a market-oriented approach to platform governance (2025) · cites this paper as Jhaver et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 270
- Authors
- Jhaver, S., Ghoshal, S., Bruckman, A., & Gilbert, E.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, US
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
- Published
- 2018-03-22
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-33
- ISSN
- 1073-0516 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7325
- OpenAlex
- W2791200426
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 12.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- online harassment, content moderation, Twitter, account blocking, blacklists, social network design, freedom of expression, user protection, design interventions
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