Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms

Flagging mechanisms on social media platforms allow users to report inappropriate posts/accounts for review by content moderators. These reports are pivotal to platforms’ efforts toward regulating norm violations. This article examines how platforms’ design choices in implementing flagging mechanisms influence flaggers’ perceptions of content moderation. We conducted a survey experiment asking US respondents ( N =2,936) to flag inappropriate posts using one of 54 randomly assigned flagging implementations. After flagging, participants rated their fairness perceptions of the flag submission process along the dimensions of consistency, transparency, and voice (agency). We found that participants perceived greater transparency when flagging interfaces included community guidelines and greater voice when they incorporated a text box for open-ended feedback. Our qualitative analysis of open-ended responses highlights user needs for improved accessibility, educational support for reporting, and protections against false flags. We offer design recommendations for building fairer flagging systems without exacerbating the cognitive burden of submitting flags.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on Social Computing
Published
2026-02-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3797820
Primary Topic
Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms

ACM Transactions on Social Computing
Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
article

Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms

article en

Abstract

Flagging mechanisms on social media platforms allow users to report inappropriate posts/accounts for review by content moderators. These reports are pivotal to platforms’ efforts toward regulating norm violations. This article examines how platforms’ design choices in implementing flagging mechanisms influence flaggers’ perceptions of content moderation. We conducted a survey experiment asking US respondents ( N =2,936) to flag inappropriate posts using one of 54 randomly assigned flagging implementations. After flagging, participants rated their fairness perceptions of the flag submission process along the dimensions of consistency, transparency, and voice (agency). We found that participants perceived greater transparency when flagging interfaces included community guidelines and greater voice when they incorporated a text box for open-ended feedback. Our qualitative analysis of open-ended responses highlights user needs for improved accessibility, educational support for reporting, and protections against false flags. We offer design recommendations for building fairer flagging systems without exacerbating the cognitive burden of submitting flags.

ACM Transactions on Social ComputingVol. 9(1)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Incorporating Procedural Fairness in Flag Submissions on Social Media Platforms · ACM Transactions on Social Computing (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS