1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Criminology
  4. Volume 8, 2025
  5. Article

Annual Review of Criminology

Volume 8, 2025

New Worlds Arise: Online Trust and Safety

Abstract

Over the past two decades around the world, people's social lives are increasingly occurring within online digital spaces. Throughout this transition, social media platforms have been struggling to govern an increasing number of complex social phenomena that have carried over from our offline world to these new social platforms, ranging from bullying and harassment to the sale of illicit goods. In their attempts to build out systems to govern these issues, many platforms have drawn inspiration from models borrowed from the offline world familiar to criminologists. In this review, we draw attention to the field of online trust and safety. We provide an overview of the ways platforms have developed tools and systems to govern the people, content, and interactions that take place on their platforms while also looking at the way the field itself has developed rapidly over the past few years. Lastly, we look at research that exposes opportunities for promising paths forward to govern these digital social spaces, highlighting the ways that criminology research can positively contribute toward building vital online communities.

Keyword(s): content moderation, trust and safety
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-111523-122337
2025-01-29
2025-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/8/1/annurev-criminol-111523-122337.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-111523-122337&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. ActiveFence. 2024.. About. . ActiveFence. https://www.activefence.com/about/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Argyle LP, Bail CA, Busby EC, Gubler JR, Howe T, et al. 2023.. Leveraging AI for democratic discourse: Chat interventions can improve online political conversations at scale. . PNAS 120:(41):e2311627120
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barry E. 2022.. These are the countries where Twitter, Facebook and TikTok are banned. . Time, Jan. 18. https://time.com/6139988/countries-where-twitter-facebook-tiktok-banned/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein M, Christin A, Hancock J, Hashimoto T, Jia C, et al. 2023.. Embedding societal values into social media algorithms. . J. Online Trust Saf. 2:(1). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v2i1.148
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickert M, Sonderby C. 2015.. Explaining our community standards and approach to government requests. . Meta. https://about.fb.com
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blackwell L, Dimond J, Schoenebeck S, Lampe C. 2017.. Classification and its consequences for online harassment: design insights from HeartMob. . Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1:(CSCW):24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blackwell L, Ellison N, Elliott-Deflo N, Schwartz R. 2019.. Harassment in social virtual reality: challenges for platform governance. . Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3:(CSCW):100
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bradford B, Grisel F, Meares TL, Owens E, Pineda BL, et al. 2019.. Report of the Facebook Data Transparency Advisory Group. Rep., Justice Collab., Yale Law Sch., New Haven, CT:. law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/justice/document/dtag_report_5.22.2019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brady WJ, Crockett MJ, Van Bavel JJ. 2020.. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15:(4):978–1010
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, Tucker JA, Van Bavel JJ. 2017.. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. . PNAS 114:(28):7313–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chew S. 2024.. Testimony Before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary: written statement of Shou Chew. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 118th Congress. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-01-31_-_testimony_-_chew.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clayton K, Blair S, Busam JA, Forstner S, Glance J, et al. 2020.. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. . Political Behav. 42:(4):1073–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Craig SL, McInroy L. 2014.. You can form a part of yourself online: the influence of new media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ Youth. . J. Gay Lesbian Ment. Health 18:(1):95–109
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Crawford K, Gillespie T. 2016.. What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. . New Media Soc. 18:(3):410–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cunningham T, Sana P, Leif S, Jonathan S, Jeff A, et al. 2024.. What we know about using non-engagement signals in content ranking. . arXiv:2402.06831 [cs.SI]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.13912v2
  16. D'Angelo A. 2013.. Our mission. . Quora. https://quorablog.quora.com/Our-Mission
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Drolsbach C, Pröllochs N. 2023.. Content moderation on social media in the EU: insights from the DSA transparency database. . In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pp. 939–42. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN, et al. 2019.. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. . Science 363:(6432):1144–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fagan J, Meares TL. 2008.. Punishment, deterrence and social control: the paradox of punishment in minority communities. . Ohio State J. Crim. Law 6::173–229
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiesler C, Jiang J, McCann J, Frye K, Brubaker J. 2018.. Reddit rules! Characterizing an ecosystem of governance. . In Proceedings of the Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, pp. 72–81. Palo Alto, CA:: AAAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gillespie T. 2018.. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT:: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillespie T. 2020.. Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale. . Big Data Soc. 7:(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720943234
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldman E. 2021.. Content moderation remedies. . Mich. Technol. Law Rev. 28:(1):1–60
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gorwa R, Binns R, Katzenbach C. 2020.. Algorithmic content moderation: technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. . Big Data Soc. 7:(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grimmelmann J. 2015.. The virtues of moderation. . Yale J. Law Technol. 17::42–109
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grolmus C. 2022.. Y Combinator's winter 2022 cybersecurity, privacy, and trust startups. . Security Boulevard. https://securityboulevard.com/2022/04/y-combinators-winter-2022-cybersecurity-privacy-and-trust-startups/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grüning DJ, Kamin J, Panizza F, Katsaros M, Lorenz-Spreen P. 2024.. A framework for promoting online prosocial behavior via digital interventions. . Commun. Psychol. 2::6
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hasinoff AA, Gibson A, Salehi N. 2020.. The promise of restorative justice in addressing online harm. . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-promise-of-restorative-justice-in-addressing-online-harm/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hasinoff AA, Schneider N. 2022.. From scalability to subsidiarity in addressing online harm. . Soc. Media Soc. 8:(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126041
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Horta Ribeiro M, Cheng J, West R. 2023.. Automated content moderation increases adherence to community guidelines. . In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2023, pp. 2666–76. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Horwitz J, Purnell N. 2021.. India threatens jail for Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter employees. . Wall Street Journal, March 5. https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-threatens-jail-for-facebook-whatsapp-and-twitter-employees-11614964542
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Horwitz RB. 1991.. The First Amendment meets some new technologies. . Theory Soc. 20:(1):21–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hwang S, Foote JD. 2021.. Why do people participate in small online communities?. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5, ed. J Nichols, Artic. 462 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Iyer R. 2022.. Content moderation is a dead end. . Designing Tomorrow. https://psychoftech.substack.com/p/content-moderation-is-a-dead-end
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Iyer R. 2023.. Introducing the Neely Center design code for social media. . USC Neely Center Newsletter. https://uscneelycenter.substack.com/p/introducing-the-neely-center-design
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jhaver S, Bruckman A, Gilbert E. 2019.. Does transparency in moderation really matter? User behavior after content removal explanations on Reddit. . In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, ed. A Lampinen, D Gergle, DA Shamma, Artic. 150 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jia C, Lam MS, Mai MC, Hancock J, Bernstein MS. 2024.. Embedding democratic values into social media AIs via societal objective functions. . In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, ed. J Nichols, Artic. 163 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jiang J, Middler S, Brubaker JR, Fiesler C. 2020.. Characterizing community guidelines on social media platforms. . In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 287–91. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kahan DM. 1997.. Ignorance of law is an excuse—but only for the virtuous. . Mich. Law Rev. 96:(1):127–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kannan VD, Veazie PJ. 2022.. US trends in social isolation, social engagement, and companionship – nationally and by age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, and work hours, 2003–2020. . SSM Popul. Health 21::101331
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Katsaros M, Caroline N, Tyler T. 2024.. Different sides of fairness—evaluations of fairness of Nextdoor's content moderation system. Work. Pap. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rh753
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Katsaros M, Tyler T, Kim J, Meares T. 2022a.. Procedural justice and self governance on Twitter: unpacking the experience of rule breaking on Twitter. . J. Online Trust Saf. 1:(3). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i3.38
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Katsaros M, Yang K, Fratamico L. 2022b.. Reconsidering tweets: intervening during tweet creation decreases offensive content. . In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, ed. C Budak, M Cha, D Quercia , pp. 477–87. Palo Alto, CA:: AAAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaushal R, van de Kerkhof J, Goanta C, Spanakis G, Iamnitchi A. 2024.. Automated transparency: a legal and empirical analysis of the Digital Services Act transparency database. . In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 1121–32. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Keller D. 2022.. The EU's new Digital Services Act and the rest of the world. . Verfassungsblog, Novemb. 7 . https://verfassungsblog.de/dsa-rest-of-world/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kim J, McDonald C, Meosky P, Katsaros M, Tyler T. 2022.. Promoting online civility through platform architecture. . J. Online Trust Saf. 1:(4). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i4.54
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Klonick K. 2018.. Why the history of content moderation matters. . Techdirt, Jan. 30. https://www.techdirt.com/2018/01/30/why-history-content-moderation-matters/
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 2009.. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Matias JN. 2019.. Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions. . PNAS 116:(20):9785–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Matsa KE. 2023.. More Americans are getting news on TikTok, bucking the trend seen on most other social media sites. . Pew Research Center, Novemb. 15. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/15/more-americans-are-getting-news-on-tiktok-bucking-the-trend-seen-on-most-other-social-media-sites/
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Meares T. 2015.. Broken windows, neighborhoods, and the legitimacy of law enforcement or why I fell in and out of love with Zimbardo. . J. Res. Crime Delinquency 52:(4):609–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Maxim K, Parecki J, Cornett C. 2022.. How to build a trust and safety team in a year: a practical guide from lessons learned (so far) at Zoom. . J. Online Trust Saf. 1:(4). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i4.81
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Meta. 2023.. Meta reports fourth quarter and full year 2022 results. . Meta, Febr. 1. https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2023/Meta-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Results/default.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Meta. 2024a.. Facebook community standards | transparency center. . Meta. https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Meta. 2024b.. Hate speech | transparency center. . Meta. https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/hate-speech/
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Mosseri A. 2020.. Say □ to Messenger: introducing new messaging features for Instagram. . Meta, Sept. 30. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/new-messaging-features-for-instagram/
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Musk E. 2022.. Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint. Sorry to be a free speech absolutist. . Twitter, March 4. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Newton C. 2017.. Facebook just changed its mission, because the old one was broken. . The Verge, Febr. 16. https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14642164/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-letter-mission-statement
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Ortutay B, Hadero H. 2024.. Meta, TikTok and other social media CEOs testify in heated Senate hearing on child exploitation. . AP News, Jan. 31. https://apnews.com/article/meta-tiktok-snap-discord-zuckerberg-testify-senate-00754a6bea92aaad62585ed55f219932
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pennycook G, Bear A, Collins ET, Rand DG. 2020.. The implied truth effect: attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. . Manag. Sci. 66:(11):4944–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Perrigo B. 2024.. The AI that could heal a divided internet. . Time, April 15. https://time.com/6966990/ai-google-jigsaw-social-media-division/
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Pew Res. Cent. 2023.. Social media and news fact sheet. . Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Pite B. 2018.. Moderation and the free speech debate. . Cherwell, Novemb. 11. https://cherwell.org/2018/11/11/moderation-and-the-free-speech-debate/
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pittaro ML. 2007.. Cyber stalking: an analysis of online harassment and intimidation. . Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 1:(2):180–97
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Planas A. 2023.. Suit against social media companies including Meta, Google says racist Buffalo Tops gunman was radicalized online. . NBC News, July 12. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suit-social-media-companies-meta-google-says-racist-buffalo-tops-gunma-rcna93875
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Quattlebaum M, Tyler T. 2020.. Beyond the law: an agenda for policing reform. . Boston Univ. Law Rev. 100::1017–46
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Reddit. 2024.. Content policy - Reddit. . Reddit Policies. https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ribeiro MH, Cheng J, West R. 2022.. Post approvals in online communities. . In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, ed. C Budak, M Cha, D Quercia , pp. 335–46. Palo Alto, CA:: AAAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ribeiro MH, Jhaver S, Martinell JC, Reignier-Tayar M, West R. 2024.. Deplatforming norm-violating influencers on social media reduces overall online attention toward them. . arXiv:2401.01253v1 [cs.SI]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01253
  70. Roberts ST. 2019.. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. New Haven, CT:: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Roozenbeek J, van der Linden S. 2019.. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. . Palgrave Commun. 5::65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Roozenbeek J, van der Linden S, Goldberg B, Rathje S, Lewandowsky S. 2022.. Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. . Sci. Adv. 8:(34):eabo6254
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Sampson RJ. 2012.. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 1993.. Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. . Crime Delinquency 39:(3):396
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Schiffer Z. 2024.. Extremely Hardcore: Inside Elon Musk's Twitter. New York:: Portfolio
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Schoenebeck S, Batool A, Do G, Darling S, Grill G, et al. 2023a.. Online harassment in majority contexts: examining harms and remedies across countries. . In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. A Schmidt, K Väänänen, T Goyal, PO Kristensson, A Peters, et al., Artic. 485 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Schoenebeck S, Blackwell L. 2021.. Reimagining social media governance: harm, accountability, and repair. . Yale J. Law Technol. 23::113–52
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Schoenebeck S, Haimson OL, Nakamura L. 2021.. Drawing from justice theories to support targets of online harassment. . New Media Soc. 23:(5):1278–300
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Schoenebeck S, Lampe C, Triệu P. 2023b.. Online harassment: assessing harms and remedies. . Soc. Media Soc. 9:(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231157297
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Schultz MF. 2006.. Fear and norms and rock & roll: what jambands can teach us about persuading people to obey copyright law. . Berkeley Technol. Law J. 21:(2):651–728
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Sherman LW. 1993.. Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction. . J. Res. Crime Delinq. 30:(4):445–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Seering J, Kairam SR. 2023.. Who moderates on Twitch and what do they do? Quantifying practices in community moderation on Twitch. . In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, ed. J Nichols, Artic. 18 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Seering J, Kaufman G, Chancellor S. 2022.. Metaphors in moderation. . New Media Soc. 24:(3):621–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Seering J, Wang T, Yoon J, Kaufman G. 2019.. Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms. . New Media Soc. 21:(7):1417–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Sloane C. 2024.. Family of bullied New Jersey teen who died by suicide suing school district, others. . CBS News, Jan. 30. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/family-of-new-jersey-teenager-who-committed-suicide-after-she-was-said-to-bullied-now-suing-school-district-others/
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Stanf. Internet Obs. 2021.. Announcing the Journal of Online Trust and Safety. Stanford Internet Observatory Cyber Policy Center, July 29. https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/announcing-journal-online-trust-and-safety
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Stray J, Halevy A, Assar P, Hadfield-Menell D, Boutilier C, et al. 2023.. Building human values into recommender systems: an interdisciplinary synthesis. . In ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, Vol. 2, ed. L Chen, D Jannach, Artic. 20 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Suler J. 2004.. The online disinhibition effect. . Cyberpsychol. Behav. 7:(3):321–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Trujillo A, Fagni T, Cresci S. 2024.. The DSA transparency database: auditing self-reported moderation actions by social media. . arXiv:2312.10269v3 [cs.SI]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.10269
  90. Trust Saf. Teach. Consort. 2024.. The trust & safety teaching consortium. . Teaching Trust and Safety. https://stanfordio.github.io/TeachingTrustSafety/
    [Google Scholar]
  91. TSF (Trust Saf. Found.). 2023.. The history of trust & safety project. . Trust and Safety Foundation Project. https://trustandsafetyfoundation.org/the-history-of-trust-safety-project/
    [Google Scholar]
  92. TSPA (Trust Saf. Prof. Assoc.). 2024.. About us. . Trust & Safety Professional Association. https://www.tspa.org/about-tspa/
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Tushnet R. 2008.. Power without responsibility: intermediaries and the First Amendment. . George Wash. Law Rev. 76:(4):986–1016
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Tyler T. 2017.. From harm reduction to community engagement: redefining the goals of American policing in the twenty-first century. . Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 111:(6):1537–64
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Tyler T, Katsaros M, Meares T, Venkatesh S. 2021.. Social media governance: Can social media companies motivate voluntary rule following behavior among their users?. J. Exp. Criminol. 17:(1):109–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Tyler T, Nobo C. 2022.. Legitimacy-Based Policing and the Promotion of Community Vitality. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  97. UC Berkeley Cent. Hum.-Compat. AI. 2024.. The Prosocial Ranking Challenge - $60,000 in prizes for better social media algorithms. . Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence, Jan. 18. https://humancompatible.ai/news/2024/01/18/the-prosocial-ranking-challenge-60000-in-prizes-for-better-social-media-algorithms/
    [Google Scholar]
  98. US Senate Comm. Judic. 2024.. Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis. 118th Congress. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/big-tech-and-the-online-child-sexual-exploitation-crisis
    [Google Scholar]
  99. van der Linden S. 2024.. Countering misinformation through psychological inoculation. . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psych. 69::1–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Venkatesh S. 2021.. Can outside pressure change Silicon Valley?. Freakonomics, May 17. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-outside-pressure-change-silicon-valley/
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. 2018.. The spread of true and false news online. . Science 359:(6380):1146–51
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. X. 2024.. Rules and policies. . Help center. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Xiao S, Cheshire C, Salehi N. 2022.. Sensemaking, support, safety, retribution, transformation: a restorative justice approach to understanding adolescents’ needs for addressing online harm. . In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. S Barbone, C Lampe, C Appert, DA Shamma, S Drucker, et al., Artic. 146 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Xiao S, Jhaver S, Salehi N. 2023.. Addressing interpersonal harm in online gaming communities: the opportunities and challenges for a restorative justice approach. . ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30:(6):83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. YouTube. 2024.. YouTube community guidelines & policies - how YouTube works. . YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Zuckerman E, Rajendra-Nicolucci C. 2022.. Solving social media's ‘local paradox. ’. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Oct. 3. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/solving_social_medias_local_paradox
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Zuckerman E, Rajendra-Nicolucci C. 2023.. From community governance to customer service and back again: re-examining pre-web models of online governance to address platforms’ crisis of legitimacy. . Soc. Media Soc. 9:(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196864
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-111523-122337
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error