Cited by 47Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Understanding Digital-Safety Experiences of Youth in the U.S.

Open access
Freed, Diana, Bazarova, Natalie N., Consolvo, Sunny, Han, Eunice J, Kelley, Patrick Gage, Thomas, Kurt, Cosley, Dan·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

The seamless integration of technology into the lives of youth has raised concerns about their digital safety. While prior work has explored youth experiences with physical, sexual, and emotional threats—such as bullying and trafficking—a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the myriad threats that youth experience is needed. By synthesizing the perspectives of 36 youth and 65 adult participants from the U.S., we provide an overview of today’s complex digital-safety landscape. We describe attacks youth experienced, how these moved across platforms and into the physical world, and the resulting harms. We also describe protective practices the youth and the adults who support them took to prevent, mitigate, and recover from attacks, and key barriers to doing this effectively. Our findings provide a broad perspective to help improve digital safety for youth and set directions for future work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3544548.3581128

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Margaret Talbot. 2016. The attorney fghting revenge porn. The New Yorker (2016). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/05/the-attorney- CHI '23, April 23-28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany fghting-revenge-porn
  2. Pamela Wisniewski, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson, Daniel F Perkins, and John M Carroll. 2016. Dear diary: Teens refect on their weekly online risk experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3919-3930. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858317 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freed, D., Bazarova, N. N., Consolvo, S., Han, E. J., Kelley, P. G., Thomas, K., & Cosley, D.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Cornell University, United States
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-15
OpenAlex
W4366547782
Cited by
46
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 2
FWCI
11.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2020-21)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
online risks, cyberbullying, online harassment, protective practices

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