Jane Im

As content moderation becomes a central aspect of all social media platforms and online communities, interest has grown in how to make moderation decisions contestable. On social media platforms where individual communities moderate their own activities, the responsibility to address user appeals falls on volunteers from within the community. While there is a growing body of work devoted to understanding and supporting the volunteer moderators' workload, little is known about their practice of handling user appeals. Through a collaborative and iterative design process with Reddit moderators, we found that moderators spend considerable effort in investigating user ban appeals and desired to directly engage with users and retain their agency over each decision. To fulfill their needs, we designed and built AppealMod, a system that induces friction in the appeals process by asking users to provide additional information before their appeals are reviewed by human moderators. In addition to giving moderators more information, we expected the friction in the appeal process would lead to a selection effect among users, with many insincere and toxic appeals being abandoned before getting any attention from human moderators. To evaluate our system, we conducted a randomized field experiment in a Reddit community of over 29 million users that lasted for four months. As a result of the selection effect, moderators viewed only 30% of initial appeals and less than 10% of the toxically worded appeals; yet they granted roughly the same number of appeals when compared with the control group. Overall, our system is effective at reducing moderator workload and minimizing their exposure to toxic content while honoring their preference for direct engagement and agency in appeals.

Past work has explored various ways for online platforms to leverage crowd wisdom for misinformation detection and moderation. Yet, platforms often relegate governance to their communities, and limited research has been done from the perspective of these communities and their moderators. How is misinformation currently moderated in online communities that are heavily self-governed? What role does the crowd play in this process, and how can this process be improved? In this study, we answer these questions through semi-structured interviews with Reddit moderators. We focus on a case study of COVID-19 misinformation. First, our analysis identifies a general moderation workflow model encompassing various processes participants use for handling COVID-19 misinformation. Further, we show that the moderation workflow revolves around three elements: content facticity, user intent, and perceived harm. Next, our interviews reveal that Reddit moderators rely on two types of crowd wisdom for misinformation detection. Almost all participants are heavily reliant on reports from crowds of ordinary users to identify potential misinformation. A second crowd--participants' own moderation teams and expert moderators of other communities--provide support when participants encounter difficult, ambiguous cases. Finally, we use design probes to better understand how different types of crowd signals---from ordinary users and moderators---readily available on Reddit can assist moderators with identifying misinformation. We observe that nearly half of all participants preferred these cues over labels from expert fact-checkers because these cues can help them discern user intent. Additionally, a quarter of the participants distrust professional fact-checkers, raising important concerns about misinformation moderation.