arXiv subjects

Yunhee Shim

Publications and source records attributed to Yunhee Shim.

4 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↗

arXiv2025

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↗

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↗

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↗