Declining newspaper revenues prompt local newsrooms to adopt automation to maintain efficiency and keep the community informed. However, current research provides a limited understanding of how local journalists work with digital data and which newsroom processes would benefit most from AI-supported (data) reporting. To bridge this gap, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with local journalists in Germany. Our study investigates how local journalists use data and AI (RQ1); the challenges they encounter when interacting with data and AI (RQ2); and the self-perceived opportunities of AI-supported reporting systems through the lens of discursive design (RQ3). Our findings reveal that local journalists do not fully leverage AI’s potential to support data-related work. Despite local journalists’ limited awareness of AI’s capabilities, they are willing to use it to process data and discover stories. Finally, we provide recommendations for improving AI-supported reporting in the context of local news, grounded in the journalists’ socio-technical perspective and their imagined AI future capabilities.

Hate speech remains a pressing challenge on social media, where platform moderation often fails to protect targeted users. Personal moderation tools that let users decide how content is filtered can address some of these shortcomings. However, it remains an open question on which screens (e.g., the comments, the reels tab, or the home feed) users want personal moderation and which features they value most. To address these gaps, we conducted a three-wave Delphi study with 40 activists who experienced hate speech. We combined quantitative ratings and rankings with open questions about required features. Participants prioritized personal moderation for conversational and algorithmically curated screens. They valued features allowing for reversibility and oversight across screens, while input-based, content-type specific, and highly automated features are more screen specific. We discuss the importance of personal moderation and offer user-centered design recommendations for personal moderation on Instagram.

Social media has billions of users, but we still do not fully understand why users prefer one platform over another. Establishing new platforms among already popular competitors is difficult. Prior research has richly documented people’s experiences within individual platforms, yet situating those experiences within the entirety of a user’s social media experience remains challenging. What platforms have people used, and why have they transitioned between them? We collected data from a quota-based sample of 1,000 U.S. participants. We introduce the concept of Social Media Journeys to study the entirety of their social media experiences systematically. We identify push and pull factors across the social media landscape. We also show how different generations adopted social media platforms based on personal needs. With this work, we advance HCI by moving towards holistic perspectives when discussing social media technology, offering new insights for platform design, governance, and regulation.

Commercial content moderation APIs are marketed as scalable solutions to combat online hate speech. However, the reliance on these APIs risks both silencing legitimate speech, called over-moderation, and failing to protect online platforms from harmful speech, known as under-moderation. To assess such risks, this paper introduces a framework for auditing black-box NLP systems. Using the framework, we systematically evaluate five widely used commercial content moderation APIs. Analyzing five million queries based on four datasets, we find that APIs frequently rely on group identity terms, such as “black”, to predict hate speech. While OpenAI’s and Amazon’s services perform slightly better, all providers under-moderate implicit hate speech, which uses codified messages, especially against LGBTQIA+ individuals. Simultaneously, they over-moderate counter-speech, reclaimed slurs and content related to Black, LGBTQIA+, Jewish, and Muslim people. We recommend that API providers offer better guidance on API implementation and threshold setting and more transparency on their APIs’ limitations.Warning: This paper contains offensive and hateful terms and concepts. We have chosen to reproduce these terms for reasons of transparency.

Social media is central to activists, who use it internally for coordination and externally to reach supporters and the public. To date, the HCI community has not explored activists' perspectives on future social media platforms. In interviews with 14 activists from an environmental and a queer-feminist movement in Germany, we identify activists' needs and feature requests for future social media platforms. The key finding is that on- and offline safety is their main need. Based on this, we make concrete proposals to improve safety measures. Increased control over content presentation and tools to streamline activist workflows are also central to activists. We make concrete design and research recommendations on how social media platforms and the HCI community can contribute to improved safety and content presentation, and how activists themselves can reduce their workload.

Misinformation is a challenging problem. This paper provides the first systematic interdisciplinary investigation of technical and non-technical interventions against misinformation. It combines interviews and a survey to understand which interventions are accepted across academic disciplines and approved by misinformation experts. Four interventions are supported by more than two in three misinformation experts: promoting media literacy, education in schools and universities, finding information about claims, and finding sources for claims. The most controversial intervention is deleting misinformation. We discuss the potentials and risks of all interventions. Education-based interventions are perceived as the most helpful by misinformation experts. Interventions focused on providing evidence are also widely perceived as helpful. We discuss them as scalable and always available interventions that empower users to independently identify misinformation. We also introduce the Phase Model of Misinformation Interventions that helps practitioners make informed decisions about which interventions to focus on and how to best combine interventions.

Compelling writing is tailored to its audience. This is challenging, as writers may struggle to empathize with readers, get feedback in time, or gain access to the target group. We propose a concept that generates on-demand feedback, based on writer-defined AI personas of any target audience. We explore this concept with a prototype (using GPT-3.5) in two user studies (N=5 and N=11): Writers appreciated the concept and strategically used personas for getting different perspectives. The feedback was seen as helpful and inspired revisions of text and personas, although it was often verbose and unspecific. We discuss the impact of on-demand feedback, the limited representativity of contemporary AI systems, and further ideas for defining AI personas. This work contributes to the vision of supporting writers with AI by expanding the socio-technical perspective in AI tool design: To empower creators, we also need to keep in mind their relationship to an audience.

Misinformation poses a threat to democracy and to people’s health. Reliability criteria for news websites can help people identify misinformation. But despite their importance, there has been no empirically substantiated list of criteria for distinguishing reliable from unreliable news websites. We identify reliability criteria, describe how they are applied in practice, and compare them to prior work. Based on our analysis, we distinguish between manipulable and less manipulable criteria and compare politically diverse laypeople as end-users and journalists as expert users. We discuss 11 widely recognized criteria, including the following 6 criteria that are difficult to manipulate: content, political alignment, authors, professional standards, what sources are used, and a website’s reputation. Finally, we describe how technology may be able to support people in applying these criteria in practice to assess the reliability of websites.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization provided a checklist to help people distinguish between accurate and misinformation. In controlled experiments in the United States and Germany, we investigated the utility of this ordered checklist and designed an interactive version to lower the cost of acting on checklist items. Across interventions, we observe non-trivial differences in participants’ performance in distinguishing accurate and misinformation between the two countries and discuss some possible reasons that may predict the future helpfulness of the checklist in different environments. The checklist item that provides source labels was most frequently followed and was considered most helpful. Based on our empirical findings, we recommend practitioners focus on providing source labels rather than interventions that support readers performing their own fact-checks, even though this recommendation may be influenced by the WHO’s chosen order. We discuss the complexity of providing such source labels and provide design recommendations.

This paper investigates the user experience of visualizations of a machine learning (ML) system that recognizes objects in images. This is important since even good systems can fail in unexpected ways as misclassifications on photo-sharing websites showed. In our study, we exposed users with a background in ML to three visualizations of three systems with different levels of accuracy. In interviews, we explored how the visualization helped users assess the accuracy of systems in use and how the visualization and the accuracy of the system affected trust and reliance. We found that participants do not only focus on accuracy when assessing ML systems. They also take the perceived plausibility and severity of misclassification into account and prefer seeing the probability of predictions. Semantically plausible errors are judged as less severe than errors that are implausible, which means that system accuracy could be communicated through the types of errors.

User beliefs about algorithmic systems are constantly co-produced through user interaction and the complex socio-technical systems that generate recommendations. Identifying these beliefs is crucial because they influence how users interact with recommendation algorithms. With no prior work on user beliefs of algorithmic video recommendations, practitioners lack relevant knowledge to improve the user experience of such systems. To address this problem, we conducted semi-structured interviews with middle-aged YouTube video consumers to analyze their user beliefs about the video recommendation system. Our analysis revealed different factors that users believe influence their recommendations. Based on these factors, we identified four groups of user beliefs: Previous Actions, Social Media, Recommender System, and Company Policy. Additionally, we propose a framework to distinguish the four main actors that users believe influence their video recommendations: the current user, other users, the algorithm, and the organization. This framework provides a new lens to explore design suggestions based on the agency of these four actors. It also exposes a novel aspect previously unexplored: the effect of corporate decisions on the interaction with algorithmic recommendations. While we found that users are aware of the existence of the recommendation system on YouTube, we show that their understanding of this system is limited.