Treffer: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL NETWORKS CONTENT MODERATION GUIDELINES AND BLOG POSTS.

Title:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL NETWORKS CONTENT MODERATION GUIDELINES AND BLOG POSTS.
Authors:
Gulevičiūtė, Gintarė1 gintare.guleviciute@mruni.eu, Mačiulienė, Monika1 maciuliene@mruni.eu, Skaržauskienė, Aelita1 aelita@mruni.eu, Zelenkauskaitė, Asta1 az358@drexel.edu, Diržytė, Aistė1 aiste.dirzyte@mruni.eu
Source:
Journal of Entrepreneurship & Sustainability Issues. Jun2025, Vol. 12 Issue 4, p118-128. 11p.
Database:
Business Source Elite

Weitere Informationen

The study aims to examine the content moderation guidelines of major social media platforms and assess how these platforms communicate their moderation practices through official blog posts. A comparative analysis of Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) revealed that while platforms share common moderation goals--such as prohibiting hate speech, misinformation, and harmful content--there are notable differences in the emphasis of these issues in public communications. Blog posts, used as self-representation tools, often focus on specific platform priorities, such as privacy or community protection, which may not always align with the full scope of the guidelines. For example, while misinformation is a formal concern across platforms, it is not always as prominently featured in public messaging. These findings highlight a gap between formal content moderation policies and how platforms publicly communicate their enforcement efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Entrepreneurship & Sustainability Issues is the property of Entrepreneurship & Sustainability Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)