Reporting online abuse to platforms: Factors, interfaces and the potential for care
Open accessAbstract
Evidence suggests that the rate of reporting abuse, harassment and problematic content to platforms is substantially low. This article assesses the extent to which platform interfaces may contribute to discouraging the use of reporting as a remedy to online harms. Using a walkthrough method, we analyse reporting interfaces for the extent to which they may contribute to a lack of trust in reporting. The study found that reporting interfaces (1) did not provide appropriate access to platform policy or guidelines, (2) failed to provide options for dialogue, testimonials or mechanisms to report in formats supporting user wellbeing needs, (3) were consistently framed as individualising and transactional rather than brokering care or peer support, and (4) added to the opacity of platform intervention and decision-making processes. We argue the available interfaces do not do enough to protect users from digital harms.
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?
Platform reporting interfaces are still argued to contain structural barriers that discourage reporting.
“Though platform reporting interfaces are still argued to contain structural barriers that discourage reporting (108).”
From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [108]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Cover, R., Beckett, J., Brevini, B., Lumby, C., Simcock, R., & Thompson, J. D.
- Affiliations
- RMIT University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Cover, Rob
- Venue
- Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-03-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 142-158
- ISSN
- 1354-8565 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-7382
- OpenAlex
- W4408357469
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP230100870)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- online harassment, platform policies, user well-being, platform transparency, digital harm, peer support, user interface design
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
