Abstract：Consumers seek out online user-generated content to inform their purchase decisions because they perceive content created by other consumers as more believable than marketing communications. This research provides a theory of consumer digital trust in which consumer trust in user-generated content requires a digital environment that minimizes consumer suspicion of misrepresented or missing content. The theory is supported with empirical evidence from a hierarchical meta-analysis of 128 effects from 19 online platforms over 19 years (2004-2022). Account verification features, which alleviate suspicions of misrepresented content creator identities, increase the effect of user-generated content on firm performance, but content-enhancing features, such as photo filters, that can prompt suspicion of misrepresented brand experiences, weaken this link. Content-removal features that can spark speculation of missing information in content creators' historical content and platform moderation media, which creates questions about missing content in brand conversations, weaken the influence of some user-generated content.

主要发现：UGC 的营销价值依赖数字信任；账号验证增强信任，过度美化和内容移除可能引发怀疑。

Abstract：To battle against rampant misinformation on social media, many platforms are experimenting with crowdsourced fact-checking-systems that rely on social media users' annotations of potentially misleading content. This paper investigates the efficacy of such systems in curbing misinformation in the context of Community Notes, a pioneering crowdsourced fact-checking system from Twitter/X. Utilizing a regression discontinuity design, we empirically identified the positive effect of publicly displaying community notes on an author's voluntary retraction of the noted tweet, demonstrating the viability of crowdsourced fact-checking as an alternative to professional fact-checking and forcible content removal. Our findings reveal that the effect is primarily driven by the author's reputational concern and perceived social pressure, and there is considerable heterogeneity of such effect depending on specific tweet-and user-level characteristics. Platforms, therefore, can exploit the underlying mechanism and explore the use of contextual factors to harness the full potential of crowdsourced fact-checking. Furthermore, results from discrete-time survival analyses show that publicly displaying community notes not only increases the probability of tweet retractions but also, accelerates the retraction process among retracted tweets, thereby improving platforms' responsiveness to curb misinformation. This study offers important insights to both social media platforms and policymakers on the promise of crowdsourced fact-checking and calls for the broad participation of social media users to collectively tackle the problem of misinformation.

主要发现：公开社区注释能通过声誉压力和社会压力促使作者撤回错误信息，并提升平台治理响应速度。

Abstract：How do people decide what should-and should not-be censored? Seven studies investigate the psychology of digital censorship regarding user-generated content. Study 1 is inductive, identifying three dimensions-content, intent, and outcomes-along which consumers believe censorship decisions regarding user-generated content should be made. Despite the prevailing practice of content-based digital-censorship decisions-that is, censorship based on whether the focal content includes negative, concrete attributes such as obscene language and violence-people's acceptance of censorship decisions is determined, in part, by the degree to which the creator's intent is considered (an "intent-sensitivity hypothesis"; studies 2A-D) even when failing to censor would engender negative consequences. The current research contends that this effect stems from people's belief that when online platforms make censorship decisions regarding user-generated content, they should abide by conversation norms. Thus, people demonstrate less intent sensitivity in contexts in which doing so is not as conversationally normative-for instance, when platforms are used for professional, rather than social, purposes (study 3). Furthermore, people do not expect the platform to exhibit intent sensitivity in less conversationally intimate contexts (study 4).

主要发现：用户并不只看内容是否违规，也会看平台是否考虑创作者意图；治理接受度受平台情境和对话规范影响。

Abstract：User-generated content (UGC) is pivotal in driving the adoption and engagement of platforms, influencing both users and platform owners. Despite UGC's positive impact, users often violate platform guidelines and generate low-quality content. In response to these challenges, online platforms commonly employ content moderation strategies, including the removal of posts that violate community guidelines (e.g., creating a civil and safe community). The impact of post removal on subsequent UGC creation remains uncertain. Some studies suggest that moderation tactics, such as user bans, induce a psychological backlash, potentially leading to increased UGC quantity but a decline in quality. Conversely, the learning theory suggests that the removal of posts can serve as a disciplinary measure, encouraging users to learn and internalize community guidelines and adjust their behavior accordingly. We explore the consequences of post removal on UGC quality on Reddit. Additionally, we explore the learning processes derived from users' own experiences of being punished, from users' observations of others facing similar consequences, and from the underlying reasons for moderation. Our findings indicate that post removal significantly decreases users' future rule violations and encourages the generation of higher-quality posts (as evidenced by an increase in upvotes). These results suggest that post removal, as a disciplinary measure, fosters user learning, motivating users to adhere to community guidelines and contribute superior quality content. This study's implications extend to theoretical and practical domains and provide valuable insights for platform operators on leveraging post removal as a content moderation strategy to guide users toward producing high-quality content.

主要发现：删帖不一定导致反弹；在 Reddit 情境下，它能减少未来违规并提升内容质量，说明治理也可产生学习效应。

Abstract：The rise ofinappropriate content (e.g., misinformation, spam, hate speech, etc.) has become a major concern for social media platforms. To deal with such challenges, platforms adopt various strategies to moderate the content on their websites. This study focuses on user bans, a common but controversial moderation strategy that suspends rule-violating users from further participation on a platform for a predetermined period. Specifically, we investigated the impacts of user bans on banned users'content-generating behavior (both quantity and quality). Leveraging reactance theory, we formalized our hypotheses relating users' behavioral reactions to this content moderation strategy. We implemented multiple empirical designs to analyze data from a major social media platform. Our results show that users provided more answers, on average, after bans were lifted. In contrast, we found that the quality of the content (measured by linguistic features and content appropriateness) decreased after user bans. Furthermore, we found that platform recognitions, such as badges and recommendations, alleviated individuals' reactance toward bans. Specifically, users who have received platform recognitions reduced inappropriate postings and improved the quality of their content after bans. Lastly, we explored the heterogeneous effects of user bans for different banning causes and repeated bans. Our research is among the first to evaluate the effectiveness of user bans and has important implications for content moderation on social media.

主要发现：封禁解除后用户可能发得更多但质量下降；平台认可能缓解反抗心理，降低不当内容并提升质量。