Dholakiya et al. (2014)
|Dholakiya et al. (2014)|
|Title:||A Micro-Level Examination of Content Takedown’s Consequences|
|Author(s):||Krishna Dholakiya, Nurin Mustapha, Ben Niu, Andrew Yang|
|Citation:||Dholakiya, K., Mustapha, N., Niu, B. And Yang, A. (2014) A Micro-Level Examination of Content Takedown’s Consequences. CSCW 14 February 15-19, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||This qualitative study consisted of interviews with 6 video-content creators that had experienced a takedown of their content from an online platform.|
|Data Type:||Primary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||No|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:|
“This research involved conducting interviews of varying length, with individuals, specifically video content-creators who had inconvenient and upsetting content takedown experiences across Internet platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, YouKu, and Douyin. The results were used to analyze the relationship between the users’ experience and understanding based on the interviews, and the true extent of policy, ownership, and recourse available to them officially. We found that there is a notable knowledge gap between what the users understand and believe and what is actually true of the platforms’ policy and recourse. A sense of intimidation and defeat among users was also found as a result of this gap. Such knowledge gaps and feelings also seemed to vary across platforms, potentially due to different policies.”
Main Results of the Study
The study has three main findings:
• First, there is a consistent “knowledge gap” between the user’s expectations and understanding of a platform’s policy, and the actual policy. Often, layperson understandings of copyright law do not always align with legal definitions.
• Second, there is a sense of either intimidation of the user by the platform and/or a defeatist perspective from the user. This may be exacerbated by the large size of the platform and use of legalese. Conversely, some users exhibit empathy towards platforms where they perceive the takedown to be a natural, and acceptable response to their behaviour.
• Third, users tended to perceive different platforms as having different standards of leniency/strictness, and recourse for creators whose material was removed. Some platforms may be preferred depending on the type of content concerned, or perceptions of “fairness” and accessibility.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Whilst the authors do not provide any explicit policy recommendations, they do caution on the “ethical imperative” to close the identified knowledge gap in user expectations and reality (which may be causing “chilling effects” on freedom of expression). Creating “human layers” of accessibility to algorithm information may assist in closing this gap, as well as reducing the noted feelings of intimidation and fear.