2026/08/05 by Yunhee Shim, Shagun Jhaver
Computer Science · #cs.HC
27 pages, including an appendix and 8 tables
arxiv created 2026/08/05 · arxiv updated 2026/08/06
Content creators on social media sites occupy highly visible positions on their channels. As a result, creators, especially those with large followings, experience disproportionate levels of online harm. To address such harm, they enact a range of moderation strategies, which in turn shape the visibility of content that their audiences encounter. This paper examines how content creators perceive three moderation strategies to address hateful comments (deleting, replying to, or simply ignoring) and how they decide which strategy to deploy. While creator moderation is usually examined through the lens of safety, creators' regulation decisions may also be shaped by concerns about how their actions appear to audiences and how they are rewarded or penalized by platforms' recommendation algorithms. Conducting a survey of 584 content creators, we found that in their view, (1) deleting is the most beneficial for achieving safety, (2) both deleting and replying produce better impression management benefits than ignoring, and (3) replying is perceived to yield the highest algorithmic benefits. Crucially, while expectations of emotional safety and impression management benefits significantly predicted creators' willingness to adopt each comment moderation strategy, perceived algorithmic benefits did not. By unpacking how creators evaluate these trade-offs, this study contributes to HCI research on understanding creator-led, middle-level governance. We conclude with design implications for supporting creators as crucial governance actors without burdening them with sole responsibility for online safety.