{"title":"基于社区的内容管理机制的效率:以《鸟类观察》为重点的讨论","authors":"Chenlong Wang, Pablo Lucas","doi":"10.1007/s10726-024-09881-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As user-generated online content has been flourishing with both useful information and misinformation. One of the complexities surrounding such phenomena is its huge amounts of data and its associated difficulties to effectively moderate content, particularly as most initiatives are centralised and fraught with its intrinsic trust issues. One of the few examples using mainly a decentralised (i.e., community-driven) mechanism is Twitter’s Community Notes (once named as Birdwatch) experimental project. This paper thus is about testing the efficiency of such community-based content moderation mechanism and scenarios of interest aiming to better understanding how the users themselves better moderate online content. This is done through an agent-based approach and three conclusions are discussed in detail: (1) to some extent the community is able to fight against misinformation, (2) a Birdwatch-like mechanism can indeed boost the community’s content moderation ability, but there is a nontrivial trade-off between social influence and content timeliness and (3) a simple proposition, in the form of a reminder mechanism to users, cannot fulfil the task of improving the content moderation efficiency, which means a different approach to design is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency of Community-Based Content Moderation Mechanisms: A Discussion Focused on Birdwatch\",\"authors\":\"Chenlong Wang, Pablo Lucas\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10726-024-09881-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>As user-generated online content has been flourishing with both useful information and misinformation. One of the complexities surrounding such phenomena is its huge amounts of data and its associated difficulties to effectively moderate content, particularly as most initiatives are centralised and fraught with its intrinsic trust issues. One of the few examples using mainly a decentralised (i.e., community-driven) mechanism is Twitter’s Community Notes (once named as Birdwatch) experimental project. This paper thus is about testing the efficiency of such community-based content moderation mechanism and scenarios of interest aiming to better understanding how the users themselves better moderate online content. This is done through an agent-based approach and three conclusions are discussed in detail: (1) to some extent the community is able to fight against misinformation, (2) a Birdwatch-like mechanism can indeed boost the community’s content moderation ability, but there is a nontrivial trade-off between social influence and content timeliness and (3) a simple proposition, in the form of a reminder mechanism to users, cannot fulfil the task of improving the content moderation efficiency, which means a different approach to design is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09881-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09881-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficiency of Community-Based Content Moderation Mechanisms: A Discussion Focused on Birdwatch
As user-generated online content has been flourishing with both useful information and misinformation. One of the complexities surrounding such phenomena is its huge amounts of data and its associated difficulties to effectively moderate content, particularly as most initiatives are centralised and fraught with its intrinsic trust issues. One of the few examples using mainly a decentralised (i.e., community-driven) mechanism is Twitter’s Community Notes (once named as Birdwatch) experimental project. This paper thus is about testing the efficiency of such community-based content moderation mechanism and scenarios of interest aiming to better understanding how the users themselves better moderate online content. This is done through an agent-based approach and three conclusions are discussed in detail: (1) to some extent the community is able to fight against misinformation, (2) a Birdwatch-like mechanism can indeed boost the community’s content moderation ability, but there is a nontrivial trade-off between social influence and content timeliness and (3) a simple proposition, in the form of a reminder mechanism to users, cannot fulfil the task of improving the content moderation efficiency, which means a different approach to design is needed.
期刊介绍:
The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.