Our research offers a longitudinal content analysis of news coverage and framing of social media ‘transparency reports.’ For over a decade, major social media companies (like Google, Facebook, and Twitter) have used these reports to disclose how often governments around the world are requesting user data or content removals. These voluntary disclosures aim to signal good corporate citizenship and thus are situated within the genre of CSR reporting. In addition, civil society organizations laud these disclosures as an important accountability mechanism for government surveillance efforts. Yet, this accountability mechanism may be in jeopardy. As a complement to research identifying a decline in transparency reporting practices among social media companies, our findings suggest that news coverage has experienced a similar decline. This finding is problematic because meaningful transparency and accountability require more than a few companies providing information. Transparency reports need interpreters to translate them for the relevant publics; if news coverage wanes, it risks that translation and attention wanes. To hold the powerful accountable, the Fourth Estate has an indispensable role to play

Purpose The purpose of this study is to situate information and communications technology (ICT) “transparency reports” within the theoretical framework of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. The self-denominated transparency report serves a dual purpose of highlighting an ICT company’s socially responsible behavior while also holding government agencies accountable for surveillance and requests for user data. Drawing on legitimacy theory, neo-institutional theory and stakeholder theory, this exploratory study examines how ICT companies are implementing industry-specific voluntary disclosures as a form of CSR. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis of ICT voluntary nonfinancial reporting ( N = 88) was used to identify motivating principles, the company positioning to stakeholders, the relevant publics and intended audience of these disclosures and the communication strategy used to engage primary stakeholders. Findings Key findings suggest that most ICT companies used transparency reporting to engage consumers/users as their primary stakeholders and most used a stakeholder information strategy. A majority of ICT companies signaled value-driven motives in their transparency reports while also positioning the company to stakeholders as a protector of user data and advocate for consumer rights. Originality/value This study enriches the literature on CSR communication strategies and reporting practices by extending it to an underdeveloped topic of study: novel voluntary disclosures as CSR activities of prominent ICT companies (i.e. “Big Tech”). These polyphonic reports reflect varied motives, varied positioning and varied stakeholders. For market-leading companies, transparency reporting can serve to legitimize existing market power. And for midsize and emerging companies, transparency reporting can be used to signal adherence to industry norms – set by market-leading companies.

BACKGROUND:Cancer treatment misinformation, or false claims about alternative cures, often spreads faster and farther than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks by causing distress and encouraging people to abandon support, potentially leading to deviations from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to understand how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and uncover ways to reduce misinformation.OBJECTIVE:We aimed to better understand exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including the willingness of study participants to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share Instagram posts with cancer treatment misinformation.METHODS:We conducted a survey on cancer treatment misinformation among US adults in December 2021. Participants reported their exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation generally (saw or heard, source, type of advice, and curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Participants were then randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 cancer treatment misinformation posts or an information post and asked to report their willingness to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share.RESULTS:Among US adult participants (N=603; mean age 46, SD 18.83 years), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost 1 in 4 (142/603, 23.5%) received advice about alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39.4%) and friends (37.3%) for digestive (30.3%) and natural (14.1%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (106/142, 74.6%). More than half of participants (337/603, 55.9%) saw any cancer treatment misinformation on social media, with significantly higher exposure for those with cancer (53/109, 70.6%) than for those without cancer (89/494, 52.6%; P<.001). Participants saw cancer misinformation on Facebook (39.8%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22.1%), and TikTok (14.1%), among other platforms. Participants (429/603, 71.1%) thought cancer treatment misinformation was true, at least sometimes, on social media. More than half (357/603, 59.2%) were likely to share any cancer misinformation posts shown. Many participants (412/603, 68.3%) were willing to prosocially intervene for any cancer misinformation posts, including flagging the cancer treatment misinformation posts as false (49.7%-51.4%) or reporting them to the platform (48.1%-51.4%). Among the participants, individuals with cancer and those who identified as Black or Hispanic reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation but also higher intentions to share misinformation.CONCLUSIONS:Cancer treatment misinformation reaches US adults through social media, including on widely used platforms for support. Many believe that social media posts about alternative cancer treatment are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and members of susceptible populations, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce cancer treatment misinformation if coupled with strategies to help individuals discern false claims.

Studies have shown that normalizing conversations about mental health on social media can influence behavior and reduce mental health disparities in minority populations. Using a computational analysis of 169,936 publicly available tweets, this study sought to examine how social media users communicate about Black mental health on Twitter, and who is adding to the conversations surrounding mental health. Findings provide evidence of mental health awareness frames being the most prevalent in the data, and although treatment frames have been shown to reduce stigma, terms related to mental health treatment were not as prevalent. Findings also suggest that mental health conversations are framed in the context of historical trauma and injustice and its impact on the mental health of Black communities. Despite celebrities, influencers, and mental health providers having a positive influence on mental health behaviors, results show that everyday individuals were the majority contributing to mental health conversations. The findings suggest the need for culturally and politically appropriate mental health interventions and assessments and discusses implications for the immersion of mental health providers in Black digital spaces.

A survey of alumni from a 10-year-old cohort-based online master’s program in digital communication showed that respondents felt high levels of sense of community both during the program and after graduation. Respondents reported using Facebook and email to interact with members of their cohorts, and other cohorts, and highly valued the ability to network with industry professionals with a diversity of communication experience. However, respondents felt the need for more identity-based diversity among cohort members.