CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effects of Group Sanctions on Participation and Toxicity: Quasi-experimental Evidence from the Fediverse

Open access
Colglazier, Carl, TeBlunthuis, Nathan, Shaw, Aaron·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2404.02109arXiv 2404.02109
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Online communities often overlap and coexist, despite incongruent norms and approaches to content moderation. When communities diverge, decentralized and federated communities may pursue group-level sanctions, including defederation (disconnection) to block communication between members of specific communities. We investigate the effects of defederation in the context of the Fediverse, a set of decentralized, interconnected social networks with independent governance. Mastodon and Pleroma, the most popular software powering the Fediverse, allow administrators on one server to defederate from another. We use a difference-in-differences approach and matched controls to estimate the effects of defederation events on participation and message toxicity among affected members of the blocked and blocking servers. We find that defederation causes a drop in activity for accounts on the blocked servers, but not on the blocking servers. Also, we find no evidence of an effect of defederation on message toxicity.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.02109

Cites

1 of 1 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

  • Understanding the Effect of Deplatforming on Social Networks

    Ali, S., Saeed, M. H., Aldreabi, E., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Zannettou, S., & Stringhini, G. (2021) · 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3447535.3462637 · Cited by 109 · cited 2×

    “Some past studies of deplatforming have found that toxicity increases after some deplatforming events (Ali et al. 2021; Buntain et al. 2023; Chandrasekharan et al. 2017).”
    BackgroundMethod

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Albert, R.; Jeong, H.; and Barabási, A.-L. 2000. Error and Attack Tolerance of Complex Networks. Nature, 406(6794): 378-382.
  2. Buntain, C.; Innes, M.; Mitts, T.; and Shapiro, J. 2023. Cross-Platform Reactions to the Post-January 6 Deplat- forming. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 3.
  3. Chandrasekharan, E.; Jhaver, S.; Bruckman, A.; and Gilbert, E. 2022. Quarantined! Examining the Effects of a Community-Wide Moderation Intervention on Red- dit. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 29(4): 29:1-29:26.
  4. Chandrasekharan, E.; Pavalanathan, U.; Srinivasan, A.; Glynn, A.; Eisenstein, J.; and Gilbert, E. 2017. You Can't Stay Here: The Efficacy of Reddit's 2015 Ban Examined through Hate Speech. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Inter- act., 1(CSCW): 31:1-31:22.
  5. Datta, A.; Buchegger, S.; Vu, L.-H.; Strufe, T.; and Rzadca, K. 2010. Decentralized Online Social Networks. In Furht, B., ed., Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications, 349-378. New York, NY: Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4419-7142-5.
  6. Frey, S.; and Sumner, R. W. 2019. Emergence of Integrated Institutions in a Large Population of Self-Governing Com- munities. PLOS ONE, 14(7): e0216335.
  7. Fulk, J.; Flanagin, A. J.; Kalman, M. E.; Monge, P. R.; and Ryan, T. 1996. Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems. Communication Theory, 6(1): 60-87.
  8. Gillespie, T. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-17313-0.
  9. Gruzd, A.; Soares, F. B.; and Mai, P. 2023. Trust and Safety on Social Media: Understanding the Impact of Anti-Social Behavior and Misinformation on Content Moderation and Platform Governance. Social Media + Society, 9(3): 20563051231196878.
  10. Han, C.; Kumar, D.; and Durumeric, Z. 2022. On the Infras- tructure Providers That Support Misinformation Websites. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16: 287-298.
  11. Heckathorn, D. D. 1988. Collective Sanctions and the Cre- ation of Prisoner's Dilemma Norms. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3): 535-562.
  12. Hill, B. M.; and Shaw, A. 2021. The Hidden Costs of Requiring Accounts: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Peer Production. Communication Research, 48(6): 771- 795.
  13. Iacus, S. M.; King, G.; and Porro, G. 2012. Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching. Political Analysis, 20(1): 1-24.
  14. Jhaver, S.; Boylston, C.; Yang, D.; and Bruckman, A. 2021. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deplatforming as a Mod- eration Strategy on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2): 381:1-381:30. Jigsaw. 2021. Perspective API. https://www.perspectiveapi.com/.
  15. King, G.; Pan, J.; and Roberts, M. E. 2013. How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Col- lective Expression. American Political Science Review, 107(2).
  16. Mitts, T.; Pisharody, N.; and Shapiro, J. 2022. Removal of Anti-Vaccine Content Impacts Social Media Discourse. In 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022, 319-326. Barcelona Spain: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9191-7.
  17. Myers West, S. 2018. Censored, Suspended, Shadowbanned: User Interpretations of Content Moderation on Social Media Platforms. New Media & Society, 20(11): 4366- 4383.
  18. Ribeiro, M. H.; Jhaver, S.; Zannettou, S.; Blackburn, J.; Stringhini, G.; De Cristofaro, E.; and West, R. 2021. Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The donald and r/Incels. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2): 316:1-316:24.
  19. Russo, G.; Verginer, L.; Ribeiro, M. H.; and Casiraghi, G. 2023. Spillover of Antisocial Behavior from Fringe Platforms: The Unintended Consequences of Community Banning. Proceedings of the International AAAI Confer- ence on Web and Social Media, 17: 742-753.
  20. Seering, J.; Kraut, R.; and Dabbish, L. 2017. Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW '17, 111-125. New York, NY, USA: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4335-0.
  21. Srinivasan, K. B.; Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C.; Lee, L.; and Tan, C. 2019. Content Removal as a Moderation Strategy: Compliance and Other Outcomes in the Change- myview Community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW): 163:1-163:21.
  22. Tran, C.; Champion, K.; Hill, B. M.; and Greenstadt, R. 2022. The Risks, Benefits, and Consequences of Prepub- lication Moderation: Evidence from 17 Wikipedia Lan- guage Editions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 6: 1-25.
  23. Vu, A. V.; Hutchings, A.; and Anderson, R. 2023. No Easy Way Out: The Effectiveness of Deplatforming an Extremist Forum to Suppress Hate and Harassment. arxiv:2304.07037. · arXiv
  24. Zhang, X. M.; and Zhu, F. 2011. Group Size and Incen- tives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. American Economic Review, 101(4): 1601- 1615.

Related

Metadata

Authors
Colglazier, C., TeBlunthuis, N., & Shaw, A.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
18
Pages
315-328
ISSN
2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2404.02109
arXiv
2404.02109
OpenAlex
W4399205583
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
0.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1815875, 1908850)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
Fediverse, decentralized social networks, Mastodon, Pleroma, online community participation, content moderation

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