Research Article

Users’ perception of media content and content moderation: Exploring antecedents of reporting harmful comments from a dual perspective

Yaoying Zhu 1 , Zhuo Song 2 *
More Detail
1 Teaching Center for Writing and Communication, School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, Beijing, CHINA2 School of Journalism and Communication, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, CHINA* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 15(4), October 2025, e202542, https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/17619
Published: 22 December 2025
OPEN ACCESS   1312 Views   380 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Extensive participation by users is essential for the effectiveness of content moderation. Thus, it is pivotal to understand what factors influence users’ acceptance of reporting harmful comments to the social media platform. On the basis of existing literature on the third-person effect and human-machine interaction, in the current study, we explored the antecedents of reporting harmful comments to the platform in terms of perceptions surrounding media content and content moderation from a dual “content-moderation” perspective. Through a survey of Weibo users in China (N = 500), we examined how perceived media effects, perceived human agency, and perceived justice of the reporting mechanism influence behavioral responses. The results revealed that perceived adverse media effects on others, perceived fairness and perceived transparency increased users’ engagement in content moderation. Moreover, the findings indicated that perceived human agency attenuated the relationship between perceived adverse media effects on others and reporting behavior. These insights contribute to the burgeoning field of research exploring how users perceive and interact with sociotechnical systems in the domain of user reporting. This study also innovatively integrates perceptions related to content and moderation, gaining more comprehensive understandings of reporting behavior. The current findings have practical implications for platform operators seeking to develop moderation tools for constructive discourse.
Keywords: content moderation, report, media effects, perceived justice, human-AI collaboration, “content-moderation” perspective

CITATION (APA)

Zhu, Y., & Song, Z. (2025). Users’ perception of media content and content moderation: Exploring antecedents of reporting harmful comments from a dual perspective. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 15(4), e202542. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/17619

REFERENCES

  1. Aljasir, S. (2023). Effect of online civic intervention and online disinhibition on online hate speech among digital media users. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(4), Article e202344. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13478
  2. Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free speech is a triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2011-2056.
  3. Banovic, N., Yang, Z., Ramesh, A., & Liu, A. (2023). Being trustworthy is not enough: How untrustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) can deceive the end-users and gain their trust. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579460
  4. Bhandari, A., Ozanne, M., Bazarova, N. N., & DiFranzo, D. (2021). Do you care who flagged this post? Effects of moderator visibility on bystander behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(5), 284-300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab007
  5. Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., & Shadbolt, N. (2018). ‘It’s reducing a human being to a percentage’ Perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions [Paper presentation]. The 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173951
  6. Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643
  7. Chen, X., Guan, T., & Yang, Y. (2025). Allocating content governance responsibility in China: Heterogeneous public attitudes toward multistakeholder involvement strategies. Policy & Internet, 17(2), Article e432. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.432
  8. Chipidza, W., & Yan, J. (2022). The effectiveness of flagging content belonging to prominent individuals: The case of Donald Trump on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(11), 1641-1658. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24705
  9. Chung, M., & Wihbey, J. (2024). Social media regulation, third-person effect, and public views: A comparative study of the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Mexico. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4534-4553. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122996
  10. Chung, S., & Moon, S.-I. (2016). Is the third-person effect real? A critical examination of rationales, testing methods, and previous findings of the third-person effect on censorship attitudes. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 312-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12078
  11. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386
  12. Common, M. (2019). The importance of appeals systems on social media platforms. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3462770
  13. Cover, R., Beckett, J., Brevini, B., Lumby, C., Simcock, R., & Thompson, J. D. (2025). Reporting online abuse to platforms: Factors, interfaces and the potential for care. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565251324508
  14. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18(3), 410-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163
  15. Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media & Society, 13(6), 855-872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569
  16. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763
  17. Dennett, D. C. (1988). Précis of the intentional stance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(3), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00058611
  18. Dias Oliva, T. (2020). Content moderation technologies: Applying human rights standards to protect freedom of expression. Human Rights Law Review, 20(4), 607-640. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa032
  19. Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The internal control index: A newly developed measure of locus of control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164484442004
  20. Flynn, A., Vakhitova, Z., Wheildon, L., Harris, B., & Robards, B. (2025). Content moderation and community standards: The disconnect between policy and user experiences reporting harmful and offensive content on social media. Policy & Internet, 17(3), Article e70006. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.70006
  21. Fuller, M. (2008). Software studies: A lexicon. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062749.001.0001
  22. Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L. D., & Yew, V. (2008). How people anthropomorphize robots [Paper presentation]. The 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349842
  23. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029
  24. Gillespie, T. (2022). Do not recommend? Reduction as a form of content moderation. Social Media + Society, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221117552
  25. Goanta, C., & Ortolani, P. (2022). Unpacking content moderation: The rise of social media platforms as online civil courts. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3969360
  26. Gonçalves, J., Weber, I., Masullo, G. M., Torres da Silva, M., & Hofhuis, J. (2023). Common sense or censorship: How algorithmic moderators and message type influence perceptions of online content deletion. New Media & Society, 25(10), 2595-2617. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211032310
  27. Gorwa, R. (2018). Towards fairness, accountability, and transparency in platform governance. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2018i0.10483
  28. Grimmelmann, J. (2015). The virtues of moderation. The Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 17(42), 42-109.
  29. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x
  30. Guo, L., & Johnson, B. G. (2020). Third-person effect and hate speech censorship on Facebook. Social Media + Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120923003
  31. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
  32. Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913
  33. Huang, G., & Wang, S. (2023). Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 73(6), 552-562. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024
  34. Jhaver, S., & Zhang, A. X. (2025). Do users want platform moderation or individual control? Examining the role of third-person effects and free speech support in shaping moderation preferences. New Media & Society, 27(5), 2930-2950. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231217993
  35. Jhaver, S., Appling, D. S., Gilbert, E., & Bruckman, A. (2019a). “Did you suspect the post would be removed?” Understanding user reactions to content removals on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359294
  36. Jhaver, S., Bruckman, A., & Gilbert, E. (2019b). Does transparency in moderation really matter? User behavior after content removal explanations on reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359252
  37. Ji, Y., & Kim, S. (2020). Crisis-induced public demand for regulatory intervention in the social media era: Examining the moderating roles of perceived government controllability and consumer collective efficacy. New Media & Society, 22(6), 959-983. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819874473
  38. Juneja, P., Rama Subramanian, D., & Mitra, T. (2020). Through the looking glass: Study of transparency in Reddit’s moderation practices. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(GROUP), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375197
  39. Kalch, A., & Naab, T. K. (2017). Replying, disliking, flagging: How users engage with uncivil and impolite comments on news sites. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 6(4), 395-419. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  40. Kang, H., & Lou, C. (2022). AI agency vs. human agency: Understanding human-AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(5), Article zmac014. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac014
  41. Katz, E. (2001). Lazarsfeld’s map of media effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(3), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/13.3.270
  42. Kim, H. (2016). The role of emotions and culture in the third-person effect process of news coverage of election poll results. Communication Research, 43(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214558252
  43. Kim, M. (2025). A direct and indirect effect of third-person perception of COVID-19 fake news on support for fake news regulations on social media: Investigating the role of negative emotions and political views. Mass Communication and Society, 28(2), 229-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2227601
  44. Kunst, M., Porten-Cheé, P., Emmer, M., & Eilders, C. (2021). Do “good citizens” fight hate speech online? Effects of solidarity citizenship norms on user responses to hate comments. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 18(3), 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1871149
  45. Laapotti, T., & Raappana, M. (2022). Algorithms and organizing. Human Communication Research, 48(3), 491-515. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac013
  46. Leerssen, P. (2023). An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the digital services act between content moderation and curation. Computer Law & Security Review, 48, Article 105790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790
  47. Leonhard, L., Rueß, C., Obermaier, M., & Reinemann, C. (2018). Perceiving threat and feeling responsible. How severity of hate speech, number of bystanders, and prior reactions of others affect bystanders’ intention to counterargue against hate speech on Facebook. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 7(4), 555-579. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  48. Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes: The premise, the proposed solutions, and the open challenges. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x
  49. Li, M. (2023). Promote diligently and censor politely: How Sina Weibo intervenes in online activism in China. Information, Communication & Society, 26(4), 730-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1983001
  50. Lim, J. S., & Golan, G. J. (2011). Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research, 38(5), 710-727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211405649
  51. Lim, J. S., Lee, C., Kim, J., & Zhang, J. (2025). Influence of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation beliefs on the third-person effect: Implications for social media content moderation and corrective action. Online Information Review, 49(3), 497-516. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2024-0220
  52. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer.
  53. Liu, B. (2021). In AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human-AI interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6), 384-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab013
  54. Liu, Y., Mittal, A., Yang, D., & Bruckman, A. (2022). Will AI console me when I lose my pet? Understanding perceptions of AI-mediated email writing [Paper presentation]. The 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517731
  55. Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: From the mass audience to the interactive media user. In A. N. Valdivia (Ed.), A companion to media studies (pp. 337-359). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999066.ch17
  56. Luo, C., Zhu, Y., & Chen, A. (2024). What motivates people to counter misinformation on social media? Unpacking the roles of perceived consequences, third-person perception and social media use. Online Information Review, 48(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0507
  57. Lyu, Y., Cai, J., Callis, A., Cotter, K., & Carroll, J. M. (2024). “I got flagged for supposed bullying, even though it was in response to someone harassing me about my disability”: A study of blind TikTokers’ content moderation experiences [Paper presentation]. The 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642148
  58. Manovich, L. (2002). The language of new media. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2002v27n1a1280
  59. Meerson, R., Koban, K., & Matthes, J. (2025). Platform-led content moderation through the bystander lens: A systematic scoping review. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2483836
  60. Molina, M. D., & Sundar, S. S. (2022). When AI moderates online content: Effects of human collaboration and interactive transparency on user trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(4), Article zmac010. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac010
  61. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845
  62. Myers West, S. (2018). Censored, suspended, shadowbanned: User interpretations of content moderation on social media platforms. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4366-4383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818773059
  63. Naab, T. K., Kalch, A., & Meitz, T. G. (2018). Flagging uncivil user comments: Effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society, 20(2), 777-795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816670923
  64. Obermaier, M. (2024). Youth on standby? Explaining adolescent and young adult bystanders’ intervention against online hate speech. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4785-4807. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221125417
  65. Ososky, S., Philips, E., Schuster, D., & Jentsch, F. (2013). A picture is worth a thousand mental models: Evaluating human understanding of robot teammates [Paper presentation]. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571287
  66. Pan, W., Liu, D., Meng, J., & Liu, H. (2025). Human-AI communication in initial encounters: How AI agency affects trust, liking, and chat quality evaluation. New Media & Society, 27(10), 5822-5847. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241259149
  67. Porten-Cheé, P., Kunst, M., & Emmer, M. (2020). Online civic intervention: A new form of political participation under conditions of a disruptive online discourse. International Journal of Communication, 14, 514-534.
  68. Riedl, M. J., Naab, T. K., Masullo, G. M., Jost, P., & Ziegele, M. (2021). Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States. Policy & Internet, 13(3), 433-451. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.257
  69. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
  70. Schmid, U. K., Obermaier, M., & Rieger, D. (2024). Who cares? How personal political characteristics are related to online counteractions against hate speech. Human Communication Research, 50(3), 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae004
  71. Schwarz, O. (2019). Facebook rules: Structures of governance in digital capitalism and the control of generalized social capital. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(4), 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419826249
  72. Seering, J., Kaufman, G., & Chancellor, S. (2022). Metaphors in moderation. New Media & Society, 24(3), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820964968
  73. Shim, Y., & Jhaver, S. (2024). Incorporating procedural fairness in flag submissions on social media platforms. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.08498
  74. Shin, D. (2020). User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 541-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1843357
  75. Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019). Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98(9), 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019
  76. Shin, D., Zhong, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2020). Beyond user experience: What constitutes algorithmic experiences? International Journal of Information Management, 52(6), Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102061
  77. Siles, I. (2011). From online filter to web format: Articulating materiality and meaning in the early history of blogs. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 737-758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711420190
  78. Siles, I. (2012). Web technologies of the self: The arising of the “blogger” identity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 408-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01581.x
  79. Siles, I., & Boczkowski, P. (2012). At the intersection of content and materiality: A texto-material perspective on the use of media technologies. Communication Theory, 22(3), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01408.x
  80. Šori, I., & Vehovar, V. (2022). Reported user-generated online hate speech: The ‘ecosystem’, frames, and ideologies. Social Sciences, 11(8), 375-419. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080375
  81. Stockinger, A., Schäfer, S., & Lecheler, S. (2025). Navigating the gray areas of content moderation: Professional moderators’ perspectives on uncivil user comments and the role of (AI-based) technological tools. New Media & Society, 27(3), 1215-1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231190901
  82. Sun, Y., Oktavianus, J., Wang, S., & Lu, F. (2022). The role of influence of presumed influence and anticipated guilt in evoking social correction of COVID-19 misinformation. Health Communication, 37(11), 1368-1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1888452
  83. Sundar, S. S. (2020). Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human-AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026
  84. Suzor, N. P. (2018). Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. Social Media + Society, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118787812
  85. ter Hoeven, C. L., Stohl, C., Leonardi, P., & Stohl, M. (2021). Assessing organizational information visibility: Development and validation of the information visibility scale. Communication Research, 48(6), 895-927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219877093
  86. Tyler, T., Katsaros, M., Meares, T., & Venkatesh, S. (2021). Social media governance: Can social media companies motivate voluntary rule following behavior among their users? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(1), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09392-z
  87. Vaccaro, K., Sandvig, C., & Karahalios, K. (2020). “At the end of the day Facebook does what it wants” How users experience contesting algorithmic content moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415238
  88. van Dijck, J. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
  89. Wang, S. (2021). Moderating uncivil user comments by humans or machines? The effects of moderation agent on perceptions of bias and credibility in news content. Digital Journalism, 9(1), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1851279
  90. Wang, S., & Kim, K. J. (2020). Restrictive and corrective responses to uncivil user comments on news websites: The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757368
  91. Wang, S., & Kim, K. J. (2023). Content moderation on social media: Does it matter who and why moderates hate speech? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(7), 527-534. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0158
  92. Watson, B. R., Peng, Z., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). Who will intervene to save news comments? Deviance and social control in communities of news commenters. New Media & Society, 21(8), 1840-1858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819828328
  93. Wilhelm, C., Joeckel, S., & Ziegler, I. (2019). Reporting hate comments: Investigating the effects of deviance characteristics, neutralization strategies, and users’ moral orientation. Communication Research, 47(6), 921-944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219855330
  94. Wong, R. Y., Cheung, C. M., & Xiao, B. (2016). Combating online abuse: What drives people to use online reporting functions on social networking sites [Paper presentation]. The 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.58
  95. Xie, X., Shi, L., & Zhu, Y. (2023). Why netizens report harmful content online: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Communication, 17, 5830-5851.
  96. Young, G. K. (2022). How much is too much: The difficulties of social media content moderation. Information & Communications Technology Law, 31(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1905593
  97. Zhang, A. Q., Montague, K., & Jhaver, S. (2023). Cleaning up the streets: Understanding motivations, mental models, and concerns of users flagging social media posts. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.06688
  98. Zhao, L., & Zhang, R. (2024). Unpacking platform governance through meaningful human agency: How Chinese moderators make discretionary decisions in a dynamic network. New Media & Society, 27(12), 6472-6491. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241274457
  99. Ziegele, M., Naab, T. K., & Jost, P. (2019). Lonely together? Identifying the determinants of collective corrective action against uncivil comments. New Media & Society, 22(5), 731-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819870130