Social media has become a critical tool for journalists to disseminate their work, engage with their audience, and connect with sources. Unfortunately, journalists also regularly endure significant online harassment on social media platforms, ranging from personal attacks to doxxing to threats of physical harm. In this paper, we seek to understand how to make social media usable for journalists who face constant digital harassment. To begin, we conduct a set of need-finding interviews with Asian American and Pacific Islander journalists to understand where existing platform tools and newsroom resources fall short in adequately protecting journalists, especially those of marginalized identities. We map journalists' unmet needs to concrete design goals, which we use to build PressProtect, an interface that provides journalists greater agency when engaging with readers on Twitter/X. Through user testing with eight journalists, we evaluate PressProtect and find that participants felt it effectively protected them against harassment and could also generalize to serve other visible and vulnerable groups. We conclude with a discussion of our findings and recommendations for social platforms hoping to build defensive defaults for journalists facing online harassment.

In the summer of 2021, users on the livestreaming platform Twitch were targeted by a wave of "hate raids," a form of attack that overwhelms a streamer's chatroom with hateful messages, often through the use of bots and automation. Using a mixed-methods approach, we combine a quantitative measurement of attacks across the platform with interviews of streamers and third-party bot developers. We present evidence that confirms that some hate raids were highly-targeted, hate-driven attacks, but we also observe another mode of hate raid similar to networked harassment and specific forms of subcultural trolling. We show that the streamers who self-identify as LGBTQ+ and/or Black were disproportionately targeted and that hate raid messages were most commonly rooted in anti-Black racism and antisemitism. We also document how these attacks elicited rapid community responses in both bolstering reactive moderation and developing proactive mitigations for future attacks. We conclude by discussing how platforms can better prepare for attacks and protect at-risk communities while considering the division of labor between community moderators, tool-builders, and platforms.

Abstract It is commonly assumed that “free” mobile apps come at the cost of consumer privacy and that paying for apps could offer consumers protection from behavioral advertising and long-term tracking. This work empirically evaluates the validity of this assumption by comparing the privacy practices of free apps and their paid premium versions, while also gauging consumer expectations surrounding free and paid apps. We use both static and dynamic analysis to examine 5,877 pairs of free Android apps and their paid counterparts for differences in data collection practices and privacy policies between pairs. To understand user expectations for paid apps, we conducted a 998-participant online survey and found that consumers expect paid apps to have better security and privacy behaviors. However, there is no clear evidence that paying for an app will actually guarantee protection from extensive data collection in practice. Given that the free version had at least one thirdparty library or dangerous permission, respectively, we discovered that 45% of the paid versions reused all of the same third-party libraries as their free versions, and 74% of the paid versions had all of the dangerous permissions held by the free app. Likewise, our dynamic analysis revealed that 32% of the paid apps exhibit all of the same data collection and transmission behaviors as their free counterparts. Finally, we found that 40% of apps did not have a privacy policy link in the Google Play Store and that only 3.7% of the pairs that did reflected differences between the free and paid versions.