Xinning Gui

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which has led to full bans on most abortions in 14 states within one year. Many people in the U.S. use period and fertility tracking apps for reproductive healthcare and concerns have arisen about the privacy risks these apps might pose in the wake of Roe reversal. Existing literature on privacy risks of period and fertility tracking apps has primarily examined the privacy policies and practices of these apps. However, how users make sense of the privacy risks of these apps, especially in the post-Roe time, remains understudied. This study explores collective privacy sensemaking on social media, a practice in which people collectively make sense of a privacy situation. Our findings reveal how people contextualize privacy issues, speculate about the associated risks, as well as explore risk mitigation strategies. We conclude with privacy design implications for privacy design in period and fertility tracking apps and contribute insights that could inform policymaking and legal perspectives.

Researchers across various fields have investigated how users experience moderation through different perspectives and methodologies. At present, there is a pressing need of synthesizing and extracting key insights from prior literature to formulate a systematic understanding of what constitutes a moderation experience and to explore how such understanding could further inform moderation-related research and practices. To answer this question, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) by analyzing 42 empirical studies related to moderation experiences and published between January 2016 and March 2022. We describe these studies' characteristics and how they characterize users' moderation experiences. We further identify five primary perspectives that prior researchers use to conceptualize moderation experiences. These findings suggest an expansive scope of research interests in understanding moderation experiences and considering moderated users as an important stakeholder group to reflect on current moderation design but also pertain to the dominance of the punitive, solutionist logic in moderation and ample implications for future moderation research, design, and practice.