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.
The Body as Status: Muscularity, Engagement, and Body Image Risk on #GymTok
University of Southern California（南加州大学）；Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California（南加州大学信息科学研究所）；Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California（南加州大学安纳伯格传播与新闻学院）；University of California, Los Angeles（加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校）；Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles（加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校精神病学与行为神经科学系）
Understanding gender differences in experiences and concerns surrounding online harms: A short report on a nationally representative survey of UK adults
A pragmatic classification framework for AI incident monitoring
Arcadia Impact AI Governance Taskforce（Arcadia Impact AI治理工作组）；Computational Science Lab, University of Amsterdam（阿姆斯特丹大学计算科学实验室）；MIT FutureTech, Massachusetts Institute of Technology（麻省理工学院MIT未来科技）；Responsible AI Collaborative（负责任AI协作组织）
Robots in the Danger Zone: Exploring Public Perception through Engagement
Heriot-Watt University（赫瑞-瓦特大学）；University of Edinburgh（爱丁堡大学）；University of Liverpool（利物浦大学）；Imperial College（帝国理工学院）；NTB University of Applied Sciences in Technology（NTB应用科学技术大学）
Audit of takedown delays across social media reveals failure to reduce exposure to illegal content
Observatory on Social Media, Indiana University（社交媒体观测站，印第安纳大学）；Center Synergy of Systems, Dresden University of Technology（系统协同中心，德累斯顿工业大学）；Dept. of Innovative Technologies, University of Applied Science and Arts, Switzerland（创新技术系，瑞士应用科学与艺术大学）；Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Italy（计算机科学与工程系，博洛尼亚大学）；Media & Internet Governance Division, IKMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland（媒体与互联网治理部门，IKMZ，苏黎世大学）；Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California（信息科学研究所，南加州大学）
Towards Recommender Systems LLMs Playground (RecSysLLMsP): Exploring Polarization and Engagement in Simulated Social Networks
Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research and Development of Serbia（塞尔维亚人工智能研究与发展研究所）；University of Belgrade（贝尔格莱德大学）；Polytechnic University of Bari（巴里理工大学）；University of Kragujevac（克拉古耶瓦茨大学）
Supporters and Skeptics: LLM-based Analysis of Engagement with Mental Health (Mis)Information Content on Video-sharing Platforms
Georgia Institute of Technology（佐治亚理工学院）；Rowan University（罗文大学）；Zucker Hillside Hospital, Psychiatry Research（扎克山坡医院精神病学研究部）；Hofstra University（霍夫斯特拉大学）
