arXiv subjects

Shagun Jhaver

Publications and source records attributed to Shagun Jhaver.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Reply, Delete, or Ignore? Examining How Content Creators Perceive and Select Comment Moderation Strategies

Content creators on social media sites occupy highly visible positions on their channels. As a result, creators, especially those with large followings, experience disproportionate levels of online harm. To address such harm, they enact a range of moderation strategies, which in turn shape the visibility of content that their audiences encounter. This paper examines how content creators perceive three moderation strategies to address hateful comments (deleting, replying to, or simply ignoring) and how they decide which strategy to deploy. While creator moderation is usually examined through the lens of safety, creators' regulation decisions may also be shaped by concerns about how their actions appear to audiences and how they are rewarded or penalized by platforms' recommendation algorithms. Conducting a survey of 584 content creators, we found that in their view, (1) deleting is the most beneficial for achieving safety, (2) both deleting and replying produce better impression management benefits than ignoring, and (3) replying is perceived to yield the highest algorithmic benefits. Crucially, while expectations of emotional safety and impression management benefits significantly predicted creators' willingness to adopt each comment moderation strategy, perceived algorithmic benefits did not. By unpacking how creators evaluate these trade-offs, this study contributes to HCI research on understanding creator-led, middle-level governance. We conclude with design implications for supporting creators as crucial governance actors without burdening them with sole responsibility for online safety.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

The Pin of Shame: Examining Content Creators' Adoption of Pinning Inappropriate Comments as a Moderation Strategy

Many social media platforms allow content creators to pin user comments in response to their content. Once pinned, a comment remains fixed at the top of the comments section, regardless of subsequent activity or the selected sorting order. The "Pin of Shame" refers to an innovative re-purposing of this feature, where creators intentionally pin norm-violating comments to spotlight them and prompt shaming responses from their audiences. This study explores how creators adopt this emerging moderation tactic, examining their motivations, its outcomes, and how it compares-procedurally and in effect-to other content moderation strategies. Through interviews with 20 content creators who had pinned negative comments on their posts, we find that the Pin of Shame is used to punish and educate inappropriate commenters, elicit emotional accountability, provoke audience negotiation of community norms, and support creators' impression management goals. Our findings shed light on the benefits, precarities, and risks of using public shaming as a tool for norm enforcement. We contribute to HCI research by informing the design of user-centered tools for addressing content-based harm.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

"I thought it was my mistake, but it's really the design'': A Critical Examination of the Accessibility of User-Enacted Moderation Tools on Facebook and X

As social media platforms increasingly promote the use of user-enacted moderation tools (e.g., reporting, blocking, content filters) to address online harms, it becomes crucially important that such controls are usable for everyone. We evaluate the accessibility of these moderation tools on two mainstream platforms -- Facebook and X -- through interviews and task-based walkthroughs with 15 individuals with vision impairments. Adapting the lens of \emph{administrative burden of safety work}, we identify three interleaved costs that users with vision loss incur while interacting with moderation tools: \emph{learning costs} (understanding what controls do and where they live), \emph{compliance costs} (executing multi-step procedures under screen reader and low-vision conditions), and \emph{psychological costs} (experiencing uncertainty, stress, and diminished agency). Our analysis bridges the fields of content moderation and accessibility in HCI research and contributes (1) a cross-platform catalog of accessibility and usability breakdowns affecting safety tools; and (2) design recommendations for reducing this burden.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Understanding the Prevalence of Caste: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Caste-based Marginalization on X

Despite decades of anti-caste efforts, sociocultural practices that marginalize lower-caste groups in India remain prevalent and have even proliferated with the use of social media. This paper examines how groups engaged in caste-based discrimination leverage platform affordances of the social media site X (formerly Twitter) to circulate and reinforce caste ideologies. Using a critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach, we examine the rhetorical and organizing strategies of 50 X profiles representing upper-caste collectives. We find that these profiles leverage platform affordances such as information control, bandwidth, visibility, searchability, and shareability to construct two main arguments: (1) that their upper caste culture deserves a superior status and (2) that they are the "true" victims of oppression in society. These profiles' digitally mediated discursive strategies contribute to the marginalization of lower castes by normalizing caste cultures, strengthening caste networks, reinforcing caste discrimination, and diminishing anti-caste measures. Our analysis builds upon previous HCI conceptualizations of online harms and safety to inform how to address caste-based marginalization. We offer theoretical and methodological suggestions for critical HCI research focused on studying the mechanisms of power along other social categories such as race and gender.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Examining Racial Stereotypes in YouTube Autocomplete Suggestions

Autocomplete is a popular search feature that predicts queries based on user input and guides users to a set of potentially relevant suggestions. In this study, we examine what YouTube autocompletes suggest to users seeking information about race on the platform. Specifically, we perform an algorithm output audit of autocomplete suggestions for input queries about four racial groups and examine the stereotypes they embody. Using critical discourse analysis, we identify five major sociocultural contexts in which racial information appears -Appearance, Ability, Culture, Social Equity, and Manner. We found that the participatory nature of YouTube produces a multifaceted representation of race-related content in its search outputs, characterized by enduring historical biases, aggregated discrimination, and interracial tensions, while simultaneously depicting minority resistance and aspirations of a post-racial society. We call for innovations in content moderation policy design and enforcement to address existing racial harms in YouTube search outputs.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms

Flagging mechanisms on social media platforms allow users to report inappropriate posts/accounts for review by content moderators. These reports are pivotal to platforms' efforts toward regulating norm violations. This paper examines how platforms' design choices in implementing flagging mechanisms influence flaggers' perceptions of content moderation. We conducted a survey experiment asking US respondents (N=2,936) to flag inappropriate posts using one of 54 randomly assigned flagging implementations. After flagging, participants rated their fairness perceptions of the flag submission process along the dimensions of consistency, transparency, and voice (agency). We found that participants perceived greater transparency when flagging interfaces included community guidelines and greater voice when they incorporated a text box for open-ended feedback. Our qualitative analysis highlights user needs for improved accessibility, educational support for reporting, and protections against false flags. We offer design recommendations for building fairer flagging systems without exacerbating the cognitive burden of submitting flags.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Cleaning Up the Streets: Understanding Motivations, Mental Models, and Concerns of Users Flagging Social Media Content

Social media platforms offer flagging, a technical feature that empowers users to report inappropriate posts or bad actors to reduce online harm. The deceptively simple flagging interfaces on nearly all major social media platforms disguise complex underlying interactions among users, algorithms, and moderators. Through interviewing 25 social media users with prior flagging experience, most of whom belong to marginalized groups, we examine end-users' understanding of flagging procedures, explore the factors that motivate them to flag, and surface their cognitive and privacy concerns. We found that a lack of procedural transparency in flagging mechanisms creates gaps in users' mental models, yet they strongly believe that platforms must provide flagging options. Our findings highlight how flags raise critical questions about distributing labor and responsibility between platforms and users for addressing online harm. We recommend innovations in the flagging design space that enhance user comprehension, ensure privacy, and reduce cognitive burdens.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Bans vs. Warning Labels: Examining Bystanders' Support for Community-wide Moderation Interventions

Social media platforms like Facebook and Reddit host thousands of user-governed online communities. These platforms sanction communities that frequently violate platform policies; however, public perceptions of such sanctions remain unclear. In a pre-registered survey conducted in the US, I explore bystander perceptions of content moderation for communities that frequently feature hate speech, violent content, and sexually explicit content. Two community-wide moderation interventions are tested: (1) community bans, where all community posts are removed, and (2) community warning labels, where an interstitial warning label precedes access. I examine how third-person effects and support for free speech influence user approval of these interventions on any platform. My regression analyses show that presumed effects on others are a significant predictor of backing for both interventions, while free speech beliefs significantly influence participants' inclination for using warning labels. Analyzing the open-ended responses, I find that community-wide bans are often perceived as too coarse, and users instead value sanctions in proportion to the severity and type of infractions. I report on concerns that norm-violating communities could reinforce inappropriate behaviors and show how users' choice of sanctions is influenced by their perceived effectiveness. I discuss the implications of these results for HCI research on online harms and content moderation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Personal Moderation Configurations on Facebook: Exploring the Role of FoMO, Social Media Addiction, Norms, and Platform Trust

Personal moderation tools on social media platforms let users control their news feeds by configuring acceptable toxicity thresholds for their feed content or muting inappropriate accounts. This research examines how four critical psychosocial factors - fear of missing out (FoMO), social media addiction, subjective norms, and trust in moderation systems - shape Facebook users' configuration of these tools. Findings from a nationally representative sample of 1,061 participants show that FoMO and social media addiction make Facebook users more vulnerable to content-based harms by reducing their likelihood of adopting personal moderation tools to hide inappropriate posts. In contrast, descriptive and injunctive norms positively influence the use of these tools. Further, trust in Facebook's moderation systems also significantly affects users' engagement with personal moderation. This analysis highlights qualitatively different pathways through which FoMO and social media addiction make affected users disproportionately unsafe and offers design and policy solutions to address this challenge.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Bystanders of Online Moderation: Examining the Effects of Witnessing Post-Removal Explanations

Prior research on transparency in content moderation has demonstrated the benefits of offering post-removal explanations to sanctioned users. In this paper, we examine whether the influence of such explanations transcends those who are moderated to the bystanders who witness such explanations. We conduct a quasi-experimental study on two popular Reddit communities (r/askreddit and r/science) by collecting their data spanning 13 months-a total of 85.5M posts made by 5.9M users. Our causal-inference analyses show that bystanders significantly increase their posting activity and interactivity levels as compared to their matched control set of users. Our findings suggest that explanations clarify and reinforce the social norms of online spaces, enhance community engagement, and benefit many more members than previously understood. We discuss the theoretical implications and design recommendations of this research, focusing on how investing more efforts in post-removal explanations can help build thriving online communities.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Deplatforming Norm-Violating Influencers on Social Media Reduces Overall Online Attention Toward Them

From politicians to podcast hosts, online platforms have systematically banned (``deplatformed'') influential users for breaking platform guidelines. Previous inquiries on the effectiveness of this intervention are inconclusive because 1) they consider only few deplatforming events; 2) they consider only overt engagement traces (e.g., likes and posts) but not passive engagement (e.g., views); 3) they do not consider all the potential places users impacted by the deplatforming event might migrate to. We address these limitations in a longitudinal, quasi-experimental study of 165 deplatforming events targeted at 101 influencers. We collect deplatforming events from Reddit posts and then manually curate the data, ensuring the correctness of a large dataset of deplatforming events. Then, we link these events to Google Trends and Wikipedia page views, platform-agnostic measures of online attention that capture the general public's interest in specific influencers. Through a difference-in-differences approach, we find that deplatforming reduces online attention toward influencers. After 12 months, we estimate that online attention toward deplatformed influencers is reduced by -63% (95% CI [-75%,-46%]) on Google and by -43% (95% CI [-57%,-24%]) on Wikipedia. Further, as we study over a hundred deplatforming events, we can analyze in which cases deplatforming is more or less impactful, revealing nuances about the intervention. Notably, we find that both permanent and temporary deplatforming reduce online attention toward influencers; Overall, this work contributes to the ongoing effort to map the effectiveness of content moderation interventions, driving platform governance away from speculation.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2023

Online Knowledge Production in Polarized Political Memes: The Case of Critical Race Theory

Visual culture has long been deployed by actors across the political spectrum as tools of political mobilization, and have recently incorporated new communication tools, such as memes, GIFs, and emojis. In this study, we analyze the top-circulated Facebook memes relating to critical race theory (CRT) from May 2021 - May 2022 to investigate their visual and textual appeals. Using image clustering techniques and critical discourse analysis, we find that both pro- and anti-CRT memes deploy similar rhetorical tactics to make bifurcating arguments, most of which do not pertain to the academic formulations of CRT. Instead, these memes manipulate definitions of racism and antiracism to appeal to their respective audiences. We argue that labeling such discursive practices as simply a symptom of "post-truth" politics is a potentially unproductive stance. Instead, theorizing the knowledge-building practices of these memes through a lens of political epistemology allows us to understand how they produce meaning.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Decentralizing Platform Power: A Design Space of Multi-level Governance in Online Social Platforms

Many have criticized the centralized and unaccountable governance of prominent online social platforms, leading to renewed interest in platform governance that incorporates multiple centers of power. Decentralization of power can arise horizontally, through parallel communities, each with local administration, and vertically, through multiple hierarchies of overlapping jurisdiction. Drawing from literature on federalism and polycentricity in analogous offline institutions, we scrutinize the landscape of existing platforms through the lens of multi-level governance. Our analysis describes how online platforms incorporate varying forms and degrees of decentralized governance. In particular, we propose a framework that characterizes the general design space and the various ways that middle levels of governance vary in how they can interact with a centralized governance system above and end users below. This focus provides a starting point for new lines of inquiry between platform- and community-governance scholarship. By engaging themes of decentralization, hierarchy, power, and responsibility, while discussing concrete examples, we connect designers and theorists of online spaces.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Understanding the Governance Challenges of Public Libraries Subscribing to Digital Content Distributors

As popular demand for digital information increases, public libraries are increasingly turning to commercial digital content distribution services to save curation time and costs. These services let libraries subscribe to pre-configured digital content packages that become instantly available wholesale to their patrons. However, these packages often contain content that does not align with the library's curation policy. We conducted interviews with 15 public librarians in the US to examine their experiences with subscribing to digital distribution services. We found that the subscribing libraries face many digital governance challenges, including the sub-par quality of received content, a lack of control in the curation process, and a limited understanding of how distribution services operate. We draw from prior HCI and social media moderation literature to contextualize and examine these challenges. Building upon our findings, we suggest how digital distributors, libraries, and lawmakers could improve digital distribution services in library settings. We offer recommendations for co-constructing a robust digital content curation policy and discuss how librarian's cooperation and well-deployed content moderation mechanisms could help enforce that policy. Our work informs the utility of future content moderation research that bridges the fields of CSCW and library science.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Addressing interpersonal harm in online gaming communities: the opportunities and challenges for a restorative justice approach

Most social media platforms implement content moderation to address interpersonal harms such as harassment. Content moderation relies on offender-centered, punitive approaches, e.g., bans and content removal. We consider an alternative justice framework, restorative justice, which aids victims in healing, supports offenders in repairing the harm, and engages community members in addressing the harm collectively. To assess the utility of restorative justice in addressing online harm, we interviewed 23 users from Overwatch gaming communities, including moderators, victims, and offenders; such communities are particularly susceptible to harm, with nearly three quarters of all online game players suffering from some form of online abuse. We study how the communities currently handle harm cases through the lens of restorative justice and examine their attitudes toward implementing restorative justice processes. Our analysis reveals that cultural, technical, and resource-related obstacles hinder implementation of restorative justice within the existing punitive framework despite online community needs and existing structures to support it. We discuss how current content moderation systems can embed restorative justice goals and practices and overcome these challenges.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Personalizing Content Moderation on Social Media: User Perspectives on Moderation Choices, Interface Design, and Labor

Social media platforms moderate content for each user by incorporating the outputs of both platform-wide content moderation systems and, in some cases, user-configured personal moderation preferences. However, it is unclear (1) how end users perceive the choices and affordances of different kinds of personal content moderation tools, and (2) how the introduction of personalization impacts user perceptions of platforms' content moderation responsibilities. This paper investigates end users' perspectives on personal content moderation tools by conducting an interview study with a diverse sample of 24 active social media users. We probe interviewees' preferences using simulated personal moderation interfaces, including word filters, sliders for toxicity levels, and boolean toxicity toggles. We also examine the labor involved for users in choosing moderation settings and present users' attitudes about the roles and responsibilities of social media platforms and other stakeholders towards moderation. We discuss how our findings can inform design solutions to improve transparency and controllability in personal content moderation tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Do Users Want Platform Moderation or Individual Control? Examining the Role of Third-Person Effects and Free Speech Support in Shaping Moderation Preferences

This study examines social media users' preferences for the use of platform-wide moderation in comparison to user-controlled, personalized moderation tools to regulate three categories of norm-violating content - hate speech, sexually explicit content, and violent content. Via a nationally representative survey of 984 US adults, we explore the influence of third-person effects and support for freedom of expression on this choice. We find that perceived negative effects on others negatively predict while free speech support positively predicts a preference for having personal moderation settings over platform-directed moderation for regulating each speech category. Our findings show that platform governance initiatives need to account for both actual and perceived media effects of norm-violating speech categories to increase user satisfaction. Our analysis suggests that users do not view personal moderation tools as an infringement on others' free speech but as a means to assert greater agency over their social media feeds.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-led Comment Moderation

Online social platforms centered around content creators often allow comments on content, where creators moderate the comments they receive. As creators can face overwhelming numbers of comments, with some of them harassing or hateful, platforms typically provide tools such as word filters for creators to automate aspects of moderation. From needfinding interviews with 19 creators about how they use existing tools, we found that they struggled with writing good filters as well as organizing and revisiting their filters, due to the difficulty of determining what the filters actually catch. To address these issues, we present FilterBuddy, a system that supports creators in authoring new filters or building from existing filter lists, as well as organizing their filters and visualizing what comments are captured over time. We conducted an early-stage evaluation of FilterBuddy with YouTube creators, finding that participants see FilterBuddy not just as a moderation tool, but also a means to organize their comments to better understand their audiences.

cs.HC↗