Trust and Safety: What’s in a name?

Trust and Safety: What’s in a name? external link

2025

Abstract

Trust and Safety teams often carry a vision that sets them apart from other units within the tech industry. Using Giddens' structuration theory and Kroeger's take on facework as a guiding lens, we try to understand whether T&S can serve as a bridge between platform logic and public interest, between self-regulation and state regulation, harm mitigation and accountability. We are drawing on insights from semi-structured interviews with T&S professionals and arrive at two main observations. First, institutional "facework" is largely absent in practice. T&S staff lack the visibility, resources, and authority to enact their role meaningfully. Second, many companies are deprioritizing T&S. If taken seriously, however, T&S must be embedded with product design, business models, and institutional accountability. If the focus of these departments becomes performative legal compliance and the outsourcing of activities to offshore locations and machines, an opportunity to protect users and a democratic discourse may be lost.

Links

Content moderation, governance, Platforms, Social media, trust

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Weigl, L.
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-08-27
T1  - Trust and Safety: What’s in a name?
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5404950
DO  - https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5404950
AB  - Trust and Safety teams often carry a vision that sets them apart from other units within the tech industry. Using Giddens\' structuration theory and Kroeger\'s take on facework as a guiding lens, we try to understand whether T&S can serve as a bridge between platform logic and public interest, between self-regulation and state regulation, harm mitigation and accountability. We are drawing on insights from semi-structured interviews with T&S professionals and arrive at two main observations. First, institutional \"facework\" is largely absent in practice. T&S staff lack the visibility, resources, and authority to enact their role meaningfully. Second, many companies are deprioritizing T&S. If taken seriously, however, T&S must be embedded with product design, business models, and institutional accountability. If the focus of these departments becomes performative legal compliance and the outsourcing of activities to offshore locations and machines, an opportunity to protect users and a democratic discourse may be lost.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - governance
K1  - Platforms
K1  - Social media
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Trust and Safety: What’s in a name?},
	author = {Weigl, L. and Bodó, B.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5404950},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-08-27},
	abstract = {Trust and Safety teams often carry a vision that sets them apart from other units within the tech industry. Using Giddens\' structuration theory and Kroeger\'s take on facework as a guiding lens, we try to understand whether T&S can serve as a bridge between platform logic and public interest, between self-regulation and state regulation, harm mitigation and accountability. We are drawing on insights from semi-structured interviews with T&S professionals and arrive at two main observations. First, institutional \"facework\" is largely absent in practice. T&S staff lack the visibility, resources, and authority to enact their role meaningfully. Second, many companies are deprioritizing T&S. If taken seriously, however, T&S must be embedded with product design, business models, and institutional accountability. If the focus of these departments becomes performative legal compliance and the outsourcing of activities to offshore locations and machines, an opportunity to protect users and a democratic discourse may be lost.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, governance, Platforms, Social media, trust},
}

Save .bib

Commentary: Humble tools of divine intervention – The misunderstood role of algorithms in public opinion formation

Bodó, B.

Dialogues on Digital Society, 2025

Abstract

Social media companies and their owners offer these tools to control epistemic frameworks across different communities and networks. We must assume that they use them for their own benefit. This means that we need to somehow reframe ‘The Algorithm’ from being a free-floating, data- and profit-driven, but otherwise inert agent, into a tool which is used by its masters and their clients to control our symbolic spaces. The interplay, in contrast to what Gandini, Keeling and Reviglio are saying, is not between the ‘algorithmic systems and users’, but between those who design, operate and use these algorithms, and those who are controlled by them.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/29768640251369974

algorithms, Social media

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Commentary: Humble tools of divine intervention – The misunderstood role of algorithms in public opinion formation},
	author = {Bodó, B.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/29768640251369974},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-08-21},
	journal = {Dialogues on Digital Society},
	abstract = {Social media companies and their owners offer these tools to control epistemic frameworks across different communities and networks. We must assume that they use them for their own benefit. This means that we need to somehow reframe ‘The Algorithm’ from being a free-floating, data- and profit-driven, but otherwise inert agent, into a tool which is used by its masters and their clients to control our symbolic spaces. The interplay, in contrast to what Gandini, Keeling and Reviglio are saying, is not between the ‘algorithmic systems and users’, but between those who design, operate and use these algorithms, and those who are controlled by them.},
	keywords = {algorithms, Social media},
}

Save .bib

Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU external link

Leerssen, P.

JIPITEC, vol. 6, num: 2, 2015

Abstract

This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles.

Links

https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-6-2-2015/4271/leerssen.pdf

Banning, Private Censorship, Removal Orders, Social media, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Leerssen, P.
PY  - 1010
DA  - 2015-10-10
T1  - Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU
JO  - JIPITEC
VL  - 6
NV  - 2
UR  - https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-6-2-2015/4271/leerssen.pdf
AB  - This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles.
K1  - Banning
K1  - Private Censorship
K1  - Removal Orders
K1  - Social media
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Leerssen2019,
	title = {Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU},
	author = {Leerssen, P.},
	year = {1010},
	date = {2015-10-10},
	journal = {JIPITEC},
	volume = {6},
	number = {2},
	abstract = {This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles.},
	keywords = {Banning, Private Censorship, Removal Orders, Social media, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM external link

Kostić, B. & McGonagle, T.

European Yearbook of Minority Issues, vol. 16, num: 1, pp: 3-33, 2019

Abstract

Understanding the transformation of digital communication gives important insights into how new media, including social media, affect the ability of persons belonging to national minorities to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and participation in society. Thus, the new media ecosystem calls for greater attention for minority-related issues. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) has already observed that the media ecosystem is increasingly used for the expression of intolerance and hostility towards minorities, but that it also provides them with valuable expressive opportunities. This article starts with an analysis of how the advent and growing dominance of social media are causing farreaching changes in how we communicate in the new media ecosystem. The potential and drawbacks of new and social media for national minorities is the next focus. The article then analyses the ACFC’s monitoring work regarding new and social media. The article’s conclusions are supplemented by a set of recommendations that may guide the ACFC’s future monitoring work on relevant issues.

Links

frontpage, minderheden, Social media, technologie, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Kostić, B.
AU  - McGonagle, T.
PY  - 0704
DA  - 2019-07-04
T1  - How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM
JO  - European Yearbook of Minority Issues
VL  - 16
NV  - 1
SP  - 3-33
UR  - https://brill.com/abstract/journals/ymio/16/1/article-p1_2.xml
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1163/22116117_01601002
AB  - Understanding the transformation of digital communication gives important insights into how new media, including social media, affect the ability of persons belonging to national minorities to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and participation in society. Thus, the new media ecosystem calls for greater attention for minority-related issues. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) has already observed that the media ecosystem is increasingly used for the expression of intolerance and hostility towards minorities, but that it also provides them with valuable expressive opportunities. This article starts with an analysis of how the advent and growing dominance of social media are causing farreaching changes in how we communicate in the new media ecosystem. The potential and drawbacks of new and social media for national minorities is the next focus. The article then analyses the ACFC’s monitoring work regarding new and social media. The article’s conclusions are supplemented by a set of recommendations that may guide the ACFC’s future monitoring work on relevant issues.
K1  - frontpage
K1  - minderheden
K1  - Social media
K1  - technologie
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Kostić2019,
	title = {How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM},
	author = {Kostić, B. and McGonagle, T.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/22116117_01601002},
	year = {0704},
	date = {2019-07-04},
	journal = {European Yearbook of Minority Issues},
	volume = {16},
	number = {1},
	pages = {3-33},
	abstract = {Understanding the transformation of digital communication gives important insights into how new media, including social media, affect the ability of persons belonging to national minorities to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and participation in society. Thus, the new media ecosystem calls for greater attention for minority-related issues. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) has already observed that the media ecosystem is increasingly used for the expression of intolerance and hostility towards minorities, but that it also provides them with valuable expressive opportunities. This article starts with an analysis of how the advent and growing dominance of social media are causing farreaching changes in how we communicate in the new media ecosystem. The potential and drawbacks of new and social media for national minorities is the next focus. The article then analyses the ACFC’s monitoring work regarding new and social media. The article’s conclusions are supplemented by a set of recommendations that may guide the ACFC’s future monitoring work on relevant issues.},
	keywords = {frontpage, minderheden, Social media, technologie, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Germany proposes Europe’s first diversity rules for social media platforms external link

Helberger, N., Leerssen, P. & Drunen, M. van

LSE Media Policy Project Blog, vol. 2019, 2019

Links

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2019/05/29/germany-proposes-europes-first-diversity-rules-for-social-media-platforms/

Digital Single Market, Journalistiek, mededeling aan het publiek, mediabeleid, Social media, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib