Explore the vast range of titles available.

Contemporary collective action, much of which involves social media and other Internet-based platforms, leaves a digital imprint which may be harvested to better understand the dynamics of mobilization. Petition signing is an example of collective action which has gained in popularity with rising use of social media and provides such data for the whole population of petition signatories for a given platform. This paper tracks the growth curves of all 20,000 petitions to the UK government petitions website ( http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk ) and 1,800 petitions to the US White House site ( https://petitions.whitehouse.gov ), analyzing the rate of growth and outreach mechanism. Previous research has suggested the importance of the first day to the ultimate success of a petition, but has not examined early growth within that day, made possible here through hourly resolution in the data. The analysis shows that the vast majority of petitions do not achieve any measure of success; over 99 percent fail to get the 10,000 signatures required for an official response and only 0.1 percent attain the 100,000 required for a parliamentary debate (0.7 percent in the US). We analyze the data through a multiplicative process model framework to explain the heterogeneous growth of signatures at the population level. We define and measure an average outreach factor for petitions and show that it decays very fast (reducing to 0.1% after 10 hours in the UK and 30 hours in the US). After a day or two, a petition’s fate is virtually set. The findings challenge conventional analyses of collective action from economics and political science, where the production function has been assumed to follow an S-shaped curve.

User-facing ‘platform safety technology’ encompasses an array of tools offered by social media platforms to help people protect themselves from harm, for example allowing people to report content or block other users. These tools are an increasingly important part of online safety; however, little is known about how users engage with them. We present findings from a nationally representative survey of UK adults examining their experiences with online harms and safety technologies. The results show that online harm is widespread: 67% of respondents report having encountered harmful content online. Among those who are aware of safety tools, over 80% have used at least one, indicating high uptake when knowledge of the tools is present. Awareness of specific tools is varied, with people more aware of ‘post hoc’ safety tools, taken in response to harm exposure (such as reporting or blocking), than preventive measures (such as altering feed algorithms). However, satisfaction with safety technologies is generally low. People who have previously seen online harms are more likely to use safety tools, implying a ‘learning the hard way’ route to engagement. Those higher in digital literacy are also more likely to use some of these tools, raising concerns about the accessibility of these technologies. In addition, women are more likely to engage in particular types of online ‘safety work’. These findings have significant implications for platform designers, regulators, researchers and policymakers seeking to create a safer and more equitable online environment.

Data has tremendous potential to build resilience in government. To realize this potential, we need a new, human-centred, distinctly public sector approach to data science and AI, in which these technologies do not just automate or turbocharge what humans can already do well, but rather do things that people cannot.

The prevalence of online hate and abuse is a pressing global concern. While tackling such societal harms is a priority for research across the social sciences, it is a difficult task, in part because of the magnitude of the problem. User engagement with reporting mechanisms (flagging) online is an increasingly important part of monitoring and addressing harmful content at scale. However, users may not flag content routinely enough, and when they do engage, they may be biased by group identity and political beliefs. Across five well-powered and pre-registered online experiments, we examine the extent of social bias in the flagging of hate and abuse in four different intergroup contexts: political affiliation, vaccination opinions, beliefs about climate change, and stance on abortion rights. Overall, participants reported abuse reliably, with approximately half of the abusive comments in each study reported. However, a pervasive social bias was present whereby ingroup-directed abuse was consistently flagged to a greater extent than outgroup-directed abuse. Our findings offer new insights into the nature of user flagging online, an understanding of which is crucial for enhancing user intervention against online hate speech and thus ensuring a safer online environment.

This article examines public exposure to and perceptions of deepfakes based on insights from a nationally representative survey of 1403 UK adults. The survey is one of the first of its kind since recent improvements in deepfake technology and widespread adoption of political deepfakes. The findings reveal three key insights. First, on average, 15% of people report exposure to harmful deepfakes, including deepfake pornography, deepfake frauds/scams and other potentially harmful deepfakes such as those that spread health/religious misinformation/propaganda. In terms of common targets, exposure to deepfakes featuring celebrities was 50.2%, whereas those featuring politicians was 34.1%. And 5.7% of respondents recall exposure to a selection of high profile political deepfakes in the UK. Second, while exposure to harmful deepfakes was relatively low, awareness of and fears about deepfakes were high (and women were significantly more likely to report experiencing such fears than men). As with fears, general concerns about the spread of deepfakes were also high; 90.4% of the respondents were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about this issue. Most respondents (at least 91.8%) were concerned that deepfakes could add to online child sexual abuse material, increase distrust in information and manipulate public opinion. Third, while awareness about deepfakes was high, usage of deepfake tools was relatively low (8%). Most respondents were not confident about their detection abilities and were trustful of audiovisual content online. Our work highlights how the problem of deepfakes has become embedded in public consciousness in just a few years; it also highlights the need for media literacy programmes and other policy interventions to address the spread of harmful deepfakes.

Recent election surprises, regime changes, and political shocks indicate that political agendas have become more fast-moving and volatile. The ability to measure the complex dynamics of agenda change and capture the nature and extent of volatility in political systems is therefore more crucial than ever before. This study proposes a definition and operationalization of volatility that combines insights from political science, communications, information theory, and computational techniques. The proposed measures of fractionalization and agenda change encompass the shifting salience of issues in the agenda as a whole and allow the study of agendas across different domains. We evaluate these metrics and compare them to other measures such as issue-level survival rates and the Pedersen Index, which uses public-opinion poll data to measure public agendas, as well as traditional media content to measure media agendas in the UK and Germany. We show how these measures complement existing approaches and could be employed in future agenda-setting research.

Online harms, such as hate speech, trolling and self-harm promotion, continue to be widespread. There are growing concerns that these harms may disproportionately affect women, reflecting and reproducing existing structural inequalities within digital spaces. Using a nationally representative survey of UK adults (N=1992), we examine how gender shapes exposure to a variety of online harms, fears surrounding being targeted, the psychological impact of online experiences, the use of safety tools, and comfort with various forms of online participation. We find that while men and women report roughly similar levels of absolute exposure to harmful content online, women are more often targeted by contact-based harms including image-based abuse, cyberstalking and cyberflashing. Women report heightened fears about being targeted by online harms, more negative psychological impact in response to online experiences, and increased use of safety tools, reflecting more engagement with personal safety work. Importantly, women also say they are significantly less comfortable with several forms of online participation, for example just 23% of women are comfortable expressing political views online compared to 40% of men. Explanatory models show direct associations between fears surrounding harms and comfort with particular online behaviours. Our findings show how online harms reinforce gender inequality by placing disproportionate psychological burden and participation constraints on women. These results are important because with much public discourse happening online, we must ensure all members of society feel safe and able to participate in online spaces.

Online harms, such as hate speech, misinformation, harassment and self-harm promotion, continue to be widespread. While some work suggests that women are disproportionately affected by such harms, other studies find little evidence for gender differences in overall exposure. Here, we present preliminary results from a large, nationally representative survey of UK adults (N = 2000). We asked about exposure to 15 specific harms, along with fears surrounding exposure and comfort engaging in certain online behaviours. While men and women report seeing online harms to a roughly equal extent overall, we find that women are significantly more fearful of experiencing every type of harm that we asked about, and are significantly less comfortable partaking in several online behaviours. Strikingly, just 24% of women report being comfortable expressing political opinions online compared with almost 40% of men, with similar overall proportions for challenging certain content. Our work suggests that women may suffer an additional psychological burden in response to the proliferation of harmful online content, doing more 'safety work' to protect themselves. With much public discourse happening online, gender inequality in public voice is likely to be perpetuated if women feel too fearful to participate. Our results are important because to establish greater equality in society, we must take measures to ensure all members feel safe and able to participate in the online space.

User facing 'platform safety technology' encompasses an array of tools offered by platforms to help people protect themselves from harm, for example allowing people to report content and unfollow or block other users. These tools are an increasingly important part of online safety: in the UK, legislation has made it a requirement for large platforms to offer them. However, little is known about user engagement with such tools. We present findings from a nationally representative survey of UK adults covering their awareness of and experiences with seven common safety technologies. We show that experience of online harms is widespread, with 67% of people having seen what they perceived as harmful content online; 26% of people have also had at least one piece of content removed by content moderation. Use of safety technologies is also high, with more than 80\\% of people having used at least one. Awareness of specific tools is varied, with people more likely to be aware of 'post-hoc' safety tools, such as reporting, than preventative measures. However, satisfaction with safety technologies is generally low. People who have previously seen online harms are more likely to use safety tools, implying a 'learning the hard way' route to engagement. Those higher in digital literacy are also more likely to use some of these tools, raising concerns about the accessibility of these technologies to all users. Additionally, women are more likely to engage in particular types of online 'safety work'. We discuss the implications of our results for those seeking a safer online environment.

Online harms, such as hate speech, trolling and self-harm promotion, continue to be widespread. While some work suggests women are disproportionately affected, other studies find mixed evidence for gender differences in experiences with content of this kind. Using a nationally representative survey of UK adults (N=1992), we examine exposure to a variety of harms, fears surrounding being targeted, the psychological impact of online experiences, the use of safety tools to protect against harm, and comfort with various forms of online participation across men and women. We find that while men and women see harmful content online to a roughly similar extent, women are more at risk than men of being targeted by harms including online misogyny, cyberstalking and cyberflashing. Women are significantly more fearful of being targeted by harms overall, and report greater negative psychological impact as a result of particular experiences. Perhaps in an attempt to mitigate risk, women report higher use of a range of safety tools and less comfort with several forms of online participation, with just 23% of women comfortable expressing political views online compared to 40% of men. We also find direct associations between fears surrounding harms and comfort with online behaviours. For example, fear of being trolled significantly decreases comfort expressing opinions, and fear of being targeted by misogyny significantly decreases comfort sharing photos. Our results are important because with much public discourse happening online, we must ensure all members of society feel safe and able to participate in online spaces.