"I thought it was my mistake, but it's really the design'': A Critical Examination of the Accessibility of User-Enacted Moderation Tools on Facebook and X

2025-09-12

AI Summary

This study identifies critical accessibility deficits in Facebook and X’s content moderation tools (e.g., reporting, blocking, filtering) for blind users and the resulting multifaceted burdens. Using semi-structured interviews and task-based walkthroughs grounded in HCI accessibility evaluation frameworks, we systematically uncover three dimensions of “security work administrative burden”: learning cost, operational cost, and psychological cost. We introduce the novel analytical lens of *security work administrative burden*, construct the first cross-platform taxonomy of accessibility barriers in moderation interfaces, and derive actionable design recommendations. The findings advance theoretical understanding at the intersection of digital safety and accessibility, while providing empirically grounded, practical guidance for platform designers to lower barriers to safe participation among marginalized users.

Technology Category

• Humans and AI: AI for Accessibility
• Application Domains: Humanities & Computational Social Science
• Natural Language Processing: Safety and Robustness

Application Category

• Security and Privacy: Large-scale security measurements
• Responsible Web: Algorithmic accountability and transparency on the web
• Web Mining and Content Analysis: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining

Abstract

As social media platforms increasingly promote the use of user-enacted moderation tools (e.g., reporting, blocking, content filters) to address online harms, it becomes crucially important that such controls are usable for everyone. We evaluate the accessibility of these moderation tools on two mainstream platforms -- Facebook and X -- through interviews and task-based walkthroughs with 15 individuals with vision impairments. Adapting the lens of emph{administrative burden of safety work}, we identify three interleaved costs that users with vision loss incur while interacting with moderation tools: emph{learning costs} (understanding what controls do and where they live), emph{compliance costs} (executing multi-step procedures under screen reader and low-vision conditions), and emph{psychological costs} (experiencing uncertainty, stress, and diminished agency). Our analysis bridges the fields of content moderation and accessibility in HCI research and contributes (1) a cross-platform catalog of accessibility and usability breakdowns affecting safety tools; and (2) design recommendations for reducing this burden.

Problem

• Evaluating accessibility of moderation tools for vision-impaired users
• Identifying learning, compliance, and psychological costs for disabled users
• Proposing design improvements to reduce administrative burden of safety work

Innovation

• Evaluated accessibility via interviews and task-based walkthroughs
• Identified learning, compliance, psychological costs for vision impairments
• Proposed design recommendations to reduce moderation burden