Abstract
Online mental health spaces require effective content moderation for safety. Whilst policies acknowledge the need for proactive practices and moderator support, expectations and experiences of internet users engaging with self-harm and suicide content online remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore participant accounts of moderation, moderators and moderating when engaging online with self-harm/suicide (SH/S) related content.
Participants in the DELVE study were interviewed about their experiences with SH/S content online. N=14 participants were recruited to interview at baseline, with n=8 completing the 3-month follow-up, and n=7 the 6 month follow-up. Participants were also asked to complete daily diaries of their online use between interviews. Thematic analysis, with deductive coding informed by interview questions, was used to explore perspectives on moderation, moderators and moderating from interview transcripts and diary entries.
Three key themes were identified: ‘content reporting behaviour’, exploring factors influencing decisions to report SH/S content; ‘perceptions of having content blocked’, exploring participant experiences and speculative accounts of SH/S content moderation; and ‘content moderation and moderators’, examining participant views on moderation approaches, their own experiences of moderating, and insights for future moderation improvements.
This study revealed challenges in moderating SH/S content online, and highlighted inadequacies associated with current procedures. Participants struggled to self-moderate online SH/S spaces, showing the need for proactive platform-level strategies. Additionally, whilst the lived experience of moderators was valued by participants, associated risks emphasised the need for supportive measures. Policymakers and industry leaders should prioritise transparent and consistent moderation practice.
Author Summary In today’s digital world, ensuring the safety of online mental health spaces is vital. Yet, there’s still a lot we don’t understand about how people experience moderation, moderators, and moderating in self-harm and suicide online spaces. Our study set out to change that by talking to 14 individuals who engage with this content online. Through interviews and diaries, we learned more about their experiences with platform and online community moderation.
Our findings showed some important things. Firstly, individuals with declining mental health struggled to use tools that might keep them safe, like reporting content. This emphasised the need for effective moderation in online mental health spaces, to prevent harm. Secondly, unclear communication and inconsistent moderation practices lead to confusion and frustration amongst users who reported content, or had their own content moderated. Improving transparency and consistency will enhance user experiences of moderation online. Lastly, users encouraged the involvement of mental health professionals into online moderating teams, suggesting platforms and online communities should provide training and supervision from professionals to their moderation staff. These findings support our recommendations for ongoing changes to moderation procedures across online platforms.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by The University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Ethics Committee (approval no. 117491). All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
5. Availability of Data and Materials
Anonymised transcript and questionnaire data will be stored on the University of Bristol’s Research Data Service Facility. Researchers will be able to request access to non-identifiable data upon reasonable request. Access will be subject to a data access agreement and following approval from Dr Lucy Biddle and the University of Bristol Data Access Committee.
