"Give Everybody [..] a Little Bit More Equity": Content Creator Perspectives and Responses to the Algorithmic Demonetization of Content Associated with Disadvantaged Groups

Algorithmic systems help manage the governance of digital platforms featuring user-generated content, including how money is distributed to creators from the profits a platform earns from advertising on this content. However, creators producing content about disadvantaged populations have reported that these kinds of systems are biased, having associated their content with prohibited or unsafe content, leading to what creators believed were error-prone decisions to demonetize their videos. Motivated by these reports, we present the results of 20 interviews with YouTube creators and a content analysis of videos, tweets, and news about demonetization cases to understand YouTubers' perceptions of demonetization affecting videos featuring disadvantaged or vulnerable populations, as well as creator responses to demonetization, and what kinds of tools and infrastructure support they desired. We found creators had concerns about YouTube's algorithmic system stereotyping content featuring vulnerable demographics in harmful ways, for example by labeling it "unsafe'' for children or families -- creators believed these demonetization errors led to a range of economic, social, and personal harms. To provide more context to these findings, we analyzed and report on the technique a few creators used to audit YouTube's algorithms to learn what could cause the demonetization of videos featuring LGBTQ people, culture and/or social issues. In response to the varying beliefs about the causes and harms of demonetization errors, we found our interviewees wanted more reliable information and statistics about demonetization cases and errors, more control over their content and advertising, and better economic security.

[1]  Tarleton Gillespie Do Not Recommend? Reduction as a Form of Content Moderation , 2022, Social Media + Society.

[2]  Oliver L. Haimson,et al.  Disproportionate Removals and Differing Content Moderation Experiences for Conservative, Transgender, and Black Social Media Users: Marginalization and Moderation Gray Areas , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  Yubo Kou,et al.  "How advertiser-friendly is my video?": YouTuber's Socioeconomic Interactions with Algorithmic Content Moderation , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  D. Kaye,et al.  Copyright Gossip: Exploring Copyright Opinions, Theories, and Strategies on YouTube , 2021, Social Media + Society.

[5]  Kyra Yee,et al.  Image Cropping on Twitter: Fairness Metrics, their Limitations, and the Importance of Representation, Design, and Agency , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  Mary L. Gray,et al.  “This Seems to Work”: Designing Technological Systems with The Algorithmic Imaginations of Those Who Labor , 2021, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[7]  Motahhare Eslami,et al.  Everyday Algorithm Auditing: Understanding the Power of Everyday Users in Surfacing Harmful Algorithmic Behaviors , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Embracing Four Tensions in Human-Computer Interaction Research with Marginalized People , 2021, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[9]  Shruti Sannon,et al.  The Nested Precarities of Creative Labor on Social Media , 2021, Social Media + Society.

[10]  Orly Lobel We Are All Gig Workers Now: Online Platforms, Freelancers and The Battles Over Employment Status and Rights During the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[11]  Matthew Lease,et al.  Fast, Accurate, and Healthier: Interactive Blurring Helps Moderators Reduce Exposure to Harmful Content , 2020, HCOMP.

[12]  Susanne Kopf “Rewarding Good Creators”: Corporate Social Media Discourse on Monetization Schemes for Content Creators , 2020 .

[13]  Chinmay Kulkarni,et al.  Auditing Digital Platforms for Discrimination in Economic Opportunity Advertising , 2020, ArXiv.

[14]  J. Schor,et al.  Dependence and precarity in the platform economy , 2020, Theory and Society.

[15]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Algorithms as discrimination detectors , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  Auditing Race and Gender Discrimination in Online Housing Markets , 2020, ICWSM.

[17]  R. Caplan,et al.  Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy , 2020, Social Media + Society.

[18]  Ben Green,et al.  The false promise of risk assessments: epistemic reform and the limits of fairness , 2020, FAT*.

[19]  Allyson E. Gold Redliking: When Redlining Goes Online , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[20]  Haydn Belfield,et al.  Activism by the AI Community: Analysing Recent Achievements and Future Prospects , 2020, AIES.

[21]  Catherine E. Tucker,et al.  Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimination in the Display of STEM Career Ads , 2019, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Claudia Gerhards Product placement on YouTube: An explorative study on YouTube creators’ experiences with advertisers , 2019 .

[23]  N. Döring,et al.  Male dominance and sexism on YouTube: results of three content analyses , 2019 .

[24]  E. Kelly,et al.  Worker Voice in America: Is There a Gap between What Workers Expect and What They Experience? , 2018, ILR Review.

[25]  Seth D. Harris Workers, Protections, and Benefits in the U.S. Gig Economy , 2018 .

[26]  Ifeoma Ajunwa Age Discrimination by Platforms , 2018 .

[27]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  Communicating Algorithmic Process in Online Behavioral Advertising , 2018, CHI.

[28]  A. Gandini,et al.  Researching YouTube , 2018 .

[29]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification , 2018, FAT.

[30]  Deborah E. White,et al.  Thematic Analysis , 2017 .

[31]  John Pavlopoulos,et al.  Deeper Attention to Abusive User Content Moderation , 2017, EMNLP.

[32]  Marina Lao,et al.  Workers in the 'Gig' Economy: The Case for Extending the Antitrust Labor Exemption , 2017 .

[33]  Laura A. Dabbish,et al.  Working with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers , 2015, CHI.

[34]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  We Are Dynamo: Overcoming Stalling and Friction in Collective Action for Crowd Workers , 2015, CHI.

[35]  Caitlin Lustig,et al.  Algorithmic Authority: The Case of Bitcoin , 2015, 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[36]  Frank A. Pasquale The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information , 2015 .

[37]  M. Six Silberman,et al.  Turkopticon: interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk , 2013, CHI.

[38]  Latanya Sweeney,et al.  Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery , 2013, ACM Queue.

[39]  Judith A. Holton,et al.  The Coding Process and Its Challenges , 2010 .

[40]  David R. Maines,et al.  The Social Construction of Meaning , 2000 .

[41]  F. Z. Borgesius,et al.  AFFINITY PROFILING AND DISCRIMINATION BY ASSOCIATION IN ONLINE BEHAVIORAL ADVERTISING , 2021 .

[42]  W. Maalej,et al.  REM: Efficient Semi-Automated Real-Time Moderation of Online Forums , 2021, ACL.

[43]  A. Korolova,et al.  Discrimination through Optimization , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[44]  K. Charmaz,et al.  The sage handbook of grounded theory , 2007 .

[45]  Anne-Marie G. Harris Shopping While Black: Applying 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to Cases of Consumer Racial Profiling , 2003 .

[46]  R. Austin "A Nation of Thieves ": Securing Black People's Right to Shop and to Sell in White America , 1994 .