New Media
“Flagging or Fagging: (Self-)Censorship of Gay Content on YouTube” in “The Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube” [.pdf] Geert Lovink and Sabine Niederer (eds.), Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2008. ISBN: 978-90-78146-05-6.
MA THESIS:
my MA New Media thesis “YouParticipate: the politics of the YouTube flagging system” [.pdf]
You can also read the thesis online on this blog, but the footnotes are not included (yet). Here is the index page:
1. An ontology of user-options for control on YouTube
2. Research hypothesis, framework and methodology
2.1 Hypothesis: “Adding a user-controlled meta-moderation system to the
YouTube flagging system would make it more democratic.”
2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.3 Methodology
3. YouTube’s regulation model: flagging as part of the whole
3.1 International / legal level of regulation
3.1.1. Notice and takedown policy
3.2 Level for self-regulation
3.2.1. Flagging issues
3.3 Level of automation in content regulation
3.3.1 YouTube video ID technology
3.3.2 Automated Flagging
3.4 YouTube’s model concluded
4. Community’s viewpoint on the flagging system on YouTube
4.1 Methodology
4.2. Flagging problems as experienced by the community
4.2.1 Anonymity & accountability: who flagged my video?
4.2.2 Accountability: I can’t contact YouTube
4.2.3 Motivation: why was my video flagged?
4.2.4 Flagging campaigns
4.2.5 Vote bots
4.2.6 Censorship: the claim to free speech
4.3 Findings
5. Case Study: LGBT community on YouTube
5.1 F(l)agging gay content on YouTube
5.2 Strategies
5.3 Conclusion of case study
6. Flagging on other video sharing sites
6.1. Categories
6.2. Visibility
6.3. Handling of copyright
6.4. SafeSearch
7. Hierarchical moderation systems
7.1 Slashdot (1997): meta-moderation
7.2 Wikipedia (2001): user levels
7.3 Digg (2004): undigging
7.3.1 Funny or Die (2007)
7.4 Additional comments
8. Proposal: Combining flagging with rating
8.1 Model
8.2 Possible points of critique
8.3 Possible benefits
Appendix I : list of YouTube blogposts related to flagging
