• Fellowships
  • Reports
  • Lab
  • Storyboard
    • Nieman Foundation at Harvard
    HOME
    About
    Subscribe
    Archives
              
    Foundation
    Reports
    Storyboard
    LATEST STORY
    Why “Sorry, I don’t know” is sometimes the best answer: The Washington Post’s technology chief on its first AI chatbot
    Business Models Mobile & Apps Audience & Social Aggregation & Discovery Reporting & Production
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    June 17, 2021, 2:21 p.m.
    Comment moderators should focus more on hate speech than profanity, a new study suggests
    LINK: mediaengagement.org  ➚   |   Posted by: Hanaa' Tameez   |   June 17, 2021

    News consumers and social media platform users prioritize the removal of hate speech over the removal of profanity, according to a new study by the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas, Austin.

    The Center for Media Engagement partnered with Erasmus University in the Netherlands and NOVA University in Portugal to understand how the public perceives comment deletion and the moderators who do it in the United States, the Netherlands, and Portugal. They surveyed 902 people in the United States, 975 in the Netherlands, and 993 in Portugal.

    In a comment template designed to look like the common commenting platform Disqus, researchers randomly showed survey participants social media posts. Here’s how they did it:

    Participants were exposed to a social media post that contained either hate speech or profanity. Then they were exposed to a post from a moderator — either a human or an algorithm — that deleted the initial post because it was offensive. This message either explained specifically why the post was deleted, gave a general sense of why it was deleted with a clickable link to community guidelines for the site, or offered no explanation. Afterward, participants answered questions about how fair or legitimate the deletion was and how transparent or trustworthy the moderator was.

    In all countries, survey participants thought that removing hate speech was more fair and legitimate than removing profanity, and found the moderators who did so and offered a detailed explanation of why to be more transparent. In the U.S. and the Netherlands, participants found moderators removing hate speech to be more trustworthy than those who removed profanity. While the method of removal — either by a human or an algorithm — did not impact how Americans and Dutch people felt about content removal, in Portugal, “participants perceived deletions by human moderators as more fair and legitimate compared to deletions by algorithms.”

    The Center recommends the following ways to use the findings from the survey:

    • Moderators should focus more on hate speech, because people see hate speech as more in need of deletion than profanity.
    • Moderators should explain specifically why content was removed, rather than offer general explanations.
    • Algorithmic moderators may be perceived equally to human moderators, although specific cultural contexts should be considered because this may not be the case in every country.

    Read the full report here.

    Show tags
     
    What’s the best way to follow how the news is changing?
    Our daily email, with all the freshest future-of-journalism news.
    Prefer a once-a-week email? »
    The latest from Nieman Lab
    Why “Sorry, I don’t know” is sometimes the best answer: The Washington Post’s technology chief on its first AI chatbot
    Andrew Deck
    Browser cookies, as unkillable as cockroaches, won’t be leaving Google Chrome after all
    Joshua Benton
    Would you pay to be able to quit TikTok and Instagram? You’d be surprised how many would
    Peter Martin
    BREAKING: The ways people hear about big news these days; “into a million pieces,” says source
    Joshua Benton
    In 1924, a magazine ran a contest: “Who is to pay for broadcasting and how?” A century later, we’re still asking the same question
    Julia Barton
    Join the 60,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Why “Sorry, I don’t know” is sometimes the best answer: The Washington Post’s technology chief on its first AI chatbot
    “For Google, that might be failure mode…but for us, that is success,” says the Post’s Vineet Khosla
    Browser cookies, as unkillable as cockroaches, won’t be leaving Google Chrome after all
    Google — which planned to block third-party cookies in 2022, then 2023, then 2024, then 2025 — now says it won’t block them after all. A big win for adtech, but what about publishers?
    Would you pay to be able to quit TikTok and Instagram? You’d be surprised how many would
    “The relationship he has uncovered is more like the co-dependence seen in a destructive relationship, or the way we relate to addictive products such as tobacco that we know are doing us harm.”
    Help advance the Nieman Foundation’s mission “to promote and elevate the standards of journalism” by making a donation.

    To promote and elevate the standards of journalism

    Covering thought leadership in journalism

    Pushing to the future of journalism

    Exploring the art and craft of story
    © 2024 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College  /  Some rights reserved
    Harvard Trademark Privacy Digital Accessibility
    Walter Lippmann House    One Francis Ave.    Cambridge, MA 02138    617 495 2237