浏览内容审核的灰色地带:专业审核员对不文明用户评论的看法以及(基于人工智能的)技术工具的作用

Andrea Stockinger, Svenja Schäfer, S. Lecheler
{"title":"浏览内容审核的灰色地带:专业审核员对不文明用户评论的看法以及(基于人工智能的)技术工具的作用","authors":"Andrea Stockinger, Svenja Schäfer, S. Lecheler","doi":"10.1177/14614448231190901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Professional content moderators are responsible for limiting the negative effects of online discussions on news platforms and social media. However, little is known about how they adjust to platform and company moderation strategies while viewing and dealing with uncivil comments. Using qualitative interviews ( N = 18), this study examines which types of comments professional moderators classify as actionable, which (automated) strategies they use to moderate them, and how these perceptions and strategies differ between organizations, platforms, and individuals. Our results show that moderators divide content requiring intervention into clearly problematic and “gray area” comments. They (automatically) delete clear cases but use interactive or motivational moderation techniques for “gray areas.” While moderators crave more advanced technologies, they deem them incapable of addressing context-heavy comments. These findings highlight the need for nuanced regulations, emphasize the crucial role of moderators in shaping public discourse, and offer practical implications for (semi-)automated content moderation strategies.","PeriodicalId":443328,"journal":{"name":"New Media & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating the gray areas of content moderation: Professional moderators’ perspectives on uncivil user comments and the role of (AI-based) technological tools\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Stockinger, Svenja Schäfer, S. Lecheler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614448231190901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Professional content moderators are responsible for limiting the negative effects of online discussions on news platforms and social media. However, little is known about how they adjust to platform and company moderation strategies while viewing and dealing with uncivil comments. Using qualitative interviews ( N = 18), this study examines which types of comments professional moderators classify as actionable, which (automated) strategies they use to moderate them, and how these perceptions and strategies differ between organizations, platforms, and individuals. Our results show that moderators divide content requiring intervention into clearly problematic and “gray area” comments. They (automatically) delete clear cases but use interactive or motivational moderation techniques for “gray areas.” While moderators crave more advanced technologies, they deem them incapable of addressing context-heavy comments. These findings highlight the need for nuanced regulations, emphasize the crucial role of moderators in shaping public discourse, and offer practical implications for (semi-)automated content moderation strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Media & Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Media & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231190901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Media & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231190901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

专业内容审核员负责限制新闻平台和社交媒体上在线讨论的负面影响。然而,人们对他们如何在浏览和处理不文明评论时适应平台和公司的审核策略知之甚少。通过定性访谈(N = 18),本研究考察了专业版主将哪些类型的评论归类为可操作的,他们使用哪些(自动化)策略来调节评论,以及这些看法和策略在组织、平台和个人之间有何不同。我们的研究结果表明,版主将需要干预的内容分为明显有问题的和“灰色地带”的评论。他们(自动)删除清晰的案例,但对“灰色地带”使用交互式或动机调节技术。虽然版主渴望更先进的技术,但他们认为这些技术无法处理内容过多的评论。这些发现强调了细微监管的必要性,强调了审核员在塑造公共话语中的关键作用,并为(半)自动化内容审核策略提供了实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Navigating the gray areas of content moderation: Professional moderators’ perspectives on uncivil user comments and the role of (AI-based) technological tools
Professional content moderators are responsible for limiting the negative effects of online discussions on news platforms and social media. However, little is known about how they adjust to platform and company moderation strategies while viewing and dealing with uncivil comments. Using qualitative interviews ( N = 18), this study examines which types of comments professional moderators classify as actionable, which (automated) strategies they use to moderate them, and how these perceptions and strategies differ between organizations, platforms, and individuals. Our results show that moderators divide content requiring intervention into clearly problematic and “gray area” comments. They (automatically) delete clear cases but use interactive or motivational moderation techniques for “gray areas.” While moderators crave more advanced technologies, they deem them incapable of addressing context-heavy comments. These findings highlight the need for nuanced regulations, emphasize the crucial role of moderators in shaping public discourse, and offer practical implications for (semi-)automated content moderation strategies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信