Flagging mechanisms on social media platforms allow users to report inappropriate posts/accounts for review by content moderators. These reports are pivotal to platforms' efforts toward regulating norm violations. This paper examines how platforms' design choices in implementing flagging mechanisms influence flaggers' perceptions of content moderation. We conducted a survey experiment asking US respondents (N=2,936) to flag inappropriate posts using one of 54 randomly assigned flagging implementations. After flagging, participants rated their fairness perceptions of the flag submission process along the dimensions of consistency, transparency, and voice (agency). We found that participants perceived greater transparency when flagging interfaces included community guidelines and greater voice when they incorporated a text box for open-ended feedback. Our qualitative analysis highlights user needs for improved accessibility, educational support for reporting, and protections against false flags. We offer design recommendations for building fairer flagging systems without exacerbating the cognitive burden of submitting flags.

翻译：社交媒体平台上的标记机制允许用户举报不当帖子/账号，供内容审核员审查。这些举报对于平台规范违规行为至关重要。本文研究了平台在实施标记机制时的设计选择如何影响标记者对内容审核的感知。我们通过一项调查实验，要求美国受访者（N=2,936）使用随机分配的54种标记实施方案之一来标记不当帖子。标记后，参与者从一致性、透明度和发言权（能动性）三个维度评估了他们对标记提交过程的公平性感知。我们发现，当标记界面包含社区准则时，参与者感知到更高的透明度；当界面包含用于开放式反馈的文本框时，他们感知到更强的发言权。我们的定性分析强调了用户对提升可访问性、举报教育支持以及防范虚假标记的需求。我们提出了设计建议，旨在构建更公平的标记系统，同时不加重提交标记的认知负担。