Governing documents
YouTube has Community Guidelines and Terms of Service. The guidelines can be considered what Grimes, Jaeger and Fleischmann (2008) refer to as community standards, which address "highly contextualized problems" and are "written in an elusive and haphazard manner." YouTube details how it handles policy enforcement here. When YouTube removes content for violating community guidelines, the user receives a strike. These strikes last for 6 months. Users who believe their content was mistakenly removed can appeal.
3 examples
To find examples of rule-breaking and conflict, I took a look at the most-viewed videos of the 11 YouTube users who responded to my starter survey. I decided that more views would equal more comments, thus the greater chance for rule-breaking and conflict.
On ElectricDade's most-viewed video, "FTMtransition: One year on testosterone," I found a derogatory comment from muffO3O. This goes against YouTube's community guidelines, which state: "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."
This comment was marked as spam, and drew responses from ElectricDade and user Alyssa Bailey. Electric Dade got 46 upvotes for one of his responses, while Alyssa Bailey drew 40 upvotes. The ironic thing about upvoting supportive comments is that it can push the questionable comment to prominence in "Top Comments" section. This effect is especially pronounced in videos with lots of views and comments, such as this one, which as of April 20, 2013, had 7,881 comments and 1.07 million views.
My second example comes from the same video. In this case, user PilotRussia takes issue with Tully Roll's positive response to the video. PilotRussia's comment was downvoted so it's initially hidden.
My third example comes from RaideretteGirl24's most-viewed video "Before & After HRT 5 months progress video," which as of April 20, 2013, had 150,357 views and 662 comments. Like the example drawn from ElectricDade, the comment featured what would be considered hate speech:
The comment
was dealt with through downvoting, and also triggered a vociferous defense from
Ben Schwartz.
It seems that the
three main ways contentious comments are dealt with include: personal responses
from the video creator or other users; downvoting; or marking as spam.
Downvoting only works as a collective effort - i.e., enough users must hit the
thumbs down button to make it effective. (It is not clear how many negative
votes are needed to hide a comment. YouTube is probably deliberately unclear on
this. Some speculate it requires at least 5
negative votes). However, personal responses and marking comments as spam
can be implemented by individuals.According to this, YouTube defines spam as "content and/or correspondences that cause a negative user experience by making it difficult to find more relevant and substantive material. It can sometimes be used to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages to users." YouTube notes: "Please use the 'Mark as Spam' feature with extreme caution, as those who misuse it may be prohibited from using the site." The article also points out that uploaders can moderate comments before publishing, remove comments, and also unmark items flagged as spam.
Marking something as spam gives users the immediate gratification of hiding a comment and making it a little more difficult for others to see. Out of curiosity about the use of the spam feature vs. downvoting, I decided to examine the first 115 comments on ElectricDade's video. I found that
muffO3O's comment drew disapproving responses (some expletive-laden) from 6 other users. Of the 115 comments examined, 3 were hidden due to negative votes, and 3 were marked as spam. Of the three downvoted comments, two asked about the specifics of how Electric Dade became a father and one asked about the direction of transition. One spam comment mentioned werewolves, another called Electric Dade a "freak," and a third was a compliment.
I wondered about the balance between use of the mark as spam feature vs. downvoting on videos with fewer views. I took a look at violet4151's most-watched video, which is "Hormone Effects MtF." As of April 18, 2013, this video had 261,215 views and 305 comments. Of the 305 comments, 8 were marked as spam and 0 hidden due to negative votes. Of the 8, 2 were questions:
Administrator response
While Kirman (2012) talked about how mischievous behavior online can be a valuable and essential way of expressing creativity and exploring the bounds of a community, the examples above appear to be malicious, not mischievous. However, I believe Kirman's discussion of how users appropriate tools for uses not envisioned by designers is seen in how the "mark as spam" feature is used to circumvent the collaborative requirements of the downvoting system and exert individual power over disagreeable comments.
For example #1 from ElectricDade, I believe users need a different way to express disapproval of a user's language/comment content. Telling people to click on a link to win a free iPad and using swear words to insult a person are two very different kinds of misbehavior. Users are misusing the "mark as spam" feature to control what they see in the comment section, because at this time they do not have an immediate way to hide comments that they find disagreeable or offensive.
As administrator, I would add a "mute" feature for individual users. User A could mute muffO3O's comment while viewing ElectricDade's video, which would hide the comment from her view. However, User B would still be able to see muffO3O's comment. This would give User A a sense of control over her personal viewing experience and satisfaction similar to that of using the "mark as spam" feature, while at the same time ensuring that muffO3O is not censored through misuse of the spam feature. This may also encourage users to downvote items, as the addition of the mute feature will remind them that it only controls their personal viewing experience and if they want to make their disapproval visible to others, they need to hit the dislike button.
For example #2, downvoting was used to hide the comment. However, this may be a comment that merits removal by the uploader because it adds little to the conversation. If the uploader chooses to leave it as is, a better option may be to implement a collaborative filtering system for comment display.
Right now, YouTube comments are shown chronologically, with the most recent comments first (after the uploader comment and top comment areas). This sounds simple, but really isn't, as anyone trying to unravel the chronology of a heated exchange via comments will find out. The confusion is only magnified by the lack of a detailed timestamp. When 15 comments are marked "1 week ago," it's hard to tell which comment came first, particularly if users didn't bother to hit the reply button but are directing their comment at a particular user.
A collaborative filtering system would push comments that are hidden due to downvoting to the bottom of the comments list. The remaining comments would be presented chronologically, with the most recent first. Users would also retain the option of viewing all comments in the usual chronological order. Cosley et al. (2005) note that "reducing the link between posting a message and getting responses should reduce spammers' and trolls' motivation to make low-quality contributions." Most users will not read all the comments a video receives, so pushing low-quality comments to the bottom will result in less attention. Dibbell (2008) points out that griefers and trolls are motivated to disrupt and anger other users and ruin their online experience. These individuals will still have their say, but individual users gain a little more control over their experience by having the option of pushing hidden comments to the bottom.
For example #3, I believe the downvoting was used properly and was effective. However, Ben Schwartz's extensive defense may have ended up drawing more attention to the negative comment. I admit to being curious to read the hidden comment that spurred someone to write a response that spans several comments! In this case, I would remind users to reply with care - i.e., consider whether your defense of the uploader will draw more attention to a negative comment. It may be more appropriate to downvote and post your thoughts without replying directly to the troll.
Five unwritten rules
1. Agree to disagree - feel free to express a differing or unpopular opinion, but strive to use language that will extend the conversation. One-word derogatory comments don't extend the conversation, but expressing your opinion fully and in language that will not detract from your message will allow others to better understand your viewpoint and engage in conversation.
2. Contribute to YouTube's quality of conversation and videos by using the like and dislike buttons on comments. You can improve other users' experience by liking comments that you think are thoughtful, funny, or useful.
3. As an uploader, be proactive in dealing with comments. A well-moderated comment area will encourage others to subscribe, comment, and build relationships with you and other users. We encourage uploaders to monitor what's being marked as spam (and unmark items that aren't spam), to answer questions and respond to positive comments. We know that everyone deals with negative feedback and comments differently, and that some negative comments may not deserve a response, but look for ways to use negative or misinformed comments as a way to assert your beliefs and educate others.
4. Use the "reply" feature thoughtfully. Consider that writing an extensive reply to a troll may only draw more attention to the troll's comment. You may find it better to downvote the comment and express your thoughts in a comment not directly addressed to the troll.
5. Take YouTube for what it is - and understand what it's not. YouTube is a great way to share your knowledge, experiences and thoughts with a broad spectrum of people. Just as you have the right to share, others have the right to disagree or outright dislike what you have to say. At the end of the day, you are not your videos - so strive to not take things too personally.
I really appreciated the examples you chose. A lot of people aren't aware of cis-gender or intersexuality. I like your idea of the "mute button," but I wonder if it would make more sense to give control to the original poster than the viewer. In a way, it is censorship, but it can also allow for someone to present information and not be flagged as spam by people that don't agree\understand (as was the case in example 3). What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteAnother outstanding post. I worked with a site that was having user conflict problems like the ones you're describing, and initially they tested a function that would allow you not just to mute an individual, but to mute every thread that person was participating in. You can probably guess what happened--a troll would bait a user, get muted, view the user's friend list, then intentionally post on every thread the friends were posting on, so the user would see very little activity. Needless to say, that function didn't last long...
ReplyDeleteit seems to me that your way of using 'mute' feature have a possibility to enhance positive influence of filter bubble. As you suggested it as an alternative method to current unstable system, mute feature itself can be evolved toward a better solutions suitable for changing environment of Youtube. So I totally agree with your approach on this matter. What matters to me in online community is creating proper stepping stone to the next stage of community which is motivating interactive feature of internet by offering more pleasant experience. I already learned a lot from your postings. I really look forward to seeing your final and learning more from it.
ReplyDelete