Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Censored, suspended, shadowbanned: User interpretations of content moderation on social media platforms

Myers West, Sarah·2018·New Media & Society
DOI 10.1177/1461444818773059
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social media platforms play an increasingly important civic role as platforms for discourse, where we discuss, debate, and share information. This article explores how users make sense of the content moderation systems social media platforms use to curate this discourse. Through a survey of users ( n = 519) who have experienced content moderation, I explore users’ folk theories of how content moderation systems work, how they shape the affective relationship between users and platforms, and the steps users take to assert their agency by seeking redress. I find significant impacts of content moderation that go far beyond the questions of freedom of expression that have thus far dominated the debate. Raising questions about what content moderation systems are designed to accomplish, I conclude by conceptualizing an educational, rather than punitive, model for content moderation systems.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/1461444818773059

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

  • The politics of ‘platforms’

    Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 2×

    “The term platform itself can serve as an obfuscating device, operationalized at times by social media companies in order to divert tensions between their obligations to multiple constituencies (Gillespie, 2010).”

  • Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed

    Rader, E., & Gray, R. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702174 · Cited by 386 · cited 1×

    “These theories are often incomplete, are generated out of each user’s personal experiences, and serve to help them both to filter information and to make decisions about how they interact with the world (Gelman and Legare, 2011; Jones et al., 2011; Rader and Gray, 2015).”

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Myers West, S.
Venue
New Media & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-08
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
4366-4383
ISSN
  • 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7315
DOI
10.1177/1461444818773059
OpenAlex
W2800596622
Cited by
477
References
2
FWCI
299.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.