Cited by 270Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Online Harassment and Content Moderation: The Case of Blocklists

Jhaver, Shagun, Ghoshal, Sucheta, Bruckman, Amy, Gilbert, Eric·2018·ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3185593

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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)”

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