Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
User-generated content
View on WikipediaThis article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (September 2022) |

User-generated content (UGC), alternatively known as user-created content (UCC), is content generated by users of the Internet such as images, videos, audio, text, testimonials, software, and user interactions.[1][2] Online content aggregation platforms such as social media, discussion forums and wikis by their interactive and social nature, no longer produce multimedia content but provide tools to produce, collaborate, and share a variety of content, which can affect the attitudes and behaviors of the audience in various aspects.[3] This transforms the role of consumers from passive spectators to active participants.[1][4][5]
User-generated content is used for a wide range of applications, including problem processing, news, entertainment, customer engagement, advertising, gossip, research and more. It is an example of the democratization of content production and the flattening of traditional media hierarchies. The BBC adopted a user-generated content platform for its websites in 2005, and Time magazine named "You" as the Person of the Year in 2006, referring to the rise in the production of UGC on Web 2.0 platforms.[6][7] CNN also developed a similar user-generated content platform, known as iReport.[8] There are other examples of news channels implementing similar protocols, especially in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe or terrorist attack.[9] Social media users can provide key eyewitness content and information that may otherwise have been inaccessible.
Since 2020, there has been an increasing number of businesses who are utilizing User Generated Content (UGC) to promote their products and services. Several factors significantly influence how UGC is received, including the quality of the content, the credibility of the creator, and viewer engagement.[10][11] These elements can impact users' perceptions and trust towards the brand, as well as influence the buying intentions of potential customers. UGC has proven to be an effective method for brands to connect with consumers, drawing their attention through the sharing of experiences and information on social media platforms.[12][13] Due to new media and technology affordances, such as low cost and low barriers to entry, the Internet is an easy platform to create and dispense user-generated content,[14] allowing the dissemination of information at a rapid pace in the wake of an event.[15]
Definition
[edit]The advent of user-generated content marked a shift among media organizations from creating online content to providing facilities for amateurs to publish their own content.[5] User-generated content has also been characterized as citizen media as opposed to the "packaged goods media" of the past century.[16] Citizen Media is audience-generated feedback and news coverage.[17] People give their reviews and share stories in the form of user-generated and user-uploaded audio and user-generated video.[18] The former is a two-way process in contrast to the one-way distribution of the latter. Conversational or two-way media is a key characteristic of so-called Web 2.0, which encourages the publishing of one's own content and commenting on other people's content.
The role of the passive audience, therefore, has shifted since the birth of new media, and an ever-growing number of participatory users are taking advantage of these interactive opportunities, especially on the Internet, to create independent content. Grassroots experimentation then generated an innovation in sounds, artists, techniques, and associations with audiences, which then are being used in mainstream media.[19] The active, participatory, and creative audience is prevailing today with relatively accessible media, tools, and applications, and its culture is in turn affecting mass media corporations and global audiences.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined three core variables for UGC:[20][21]
- Accessible Content: User-generated content (UGC) is publicly produced through platforms located on the Internet and is available to any individual browsing such a publicly accessible website or a public social media account. There are other contexts where users must remain in a community or closed group to access and publish on such platforms (for example, wikis). This is a way of differentiating that although the content is accessible to the audience, there are certain restrictions for the users who generates the content.
- Creative effort: Creative effort was put into creating the work or adapting existing works to construct a new one; i.e. users must add their own value to the work. UGC often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites that users can edit collaboratively. For example, merely copying a portion of a television show and posting it to an online video website (an activity frequently seen on the UGC sites) would not be considered UGC. However, uploading photographs, expressing one's thoughts in a blog post or creating a new music video could be considered UGC. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context.
- Creation outside of professional routines and practices: User-generated content is generally created outside of professional routines and practices. It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. In extreme cases, UGC may be produced by non-professionals without the expectation of profit or remuneration. Motivating factors include connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself.
Media pluralism
[edit]According to Cisco, in 2016 an average of 96,000 petabytes was transferred monthly over the Internet, more than twice as many as in 2012.[22] In 2016, the number of active websites surpassed 1 billion, up from approximately 700 million in 2012.[23] This means the content we like others currently have access to is even more diverse, incorporated, and unique than ever before.[citation needed]
Reaching 1.66 billion daily active users in Q4 2019, Facebook has emerged as the most popular social media platform globally.[24] Other social media platforms are also dominant at the regional level such as: Twitter in Japan, Naver in the Republic of Korea, Instagram (owned by Facebook) and LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) in Africa, VKontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki (eng. Classmates) in Russia and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, WeChat and QQ in China.[citation needed]
However, a concentration phenomenon is occurring globally giving dominance to a few online platforms that become popular for some unique features they provide, most commonly for the added privacy they offer users through disappearing messages or end-to-end encryption (e.g. WhatsApp, Snapchat, Signal, and Telegram), but they have tended to occupy niches and to facilitate the exchanges of information that remain rather invisible to larger audiences.[25]
Production of freely accessible information has been increasing since 2012. In January 2017, Wikipedia had more than 43 million articles, almost twice as many as in January 2012. This corresponded to a progressive diversification of content and an increase in contributions in languages other than English. In 2017, less than 12 percent of Wikipedia content was in English, down from 18 percent in 2012.[26] Graham, Straumann, and Hogan say that the increase in the availability and diversity of content has not radically changed the structures and processes for the production of knowledge. For example, while content on Africa has dramatically increased, a significant portion of this content has continued to be produced by contributors operating from North America and Europe, rather than from Africa itself.[27]
History
[edit]The massive, multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary was exclusively composed of user-generated content. In 1857, Richard Chenevix Trench of the London Philological Society sought public contributions throughout the English-speaking world for the creation of the first edition of the OED.[28] As Simon Winchester recounts:
So what we're going to do, if I have your agreement that we're going to produce such a dictionary, is that we're going to send out invitations, were going to send these invitations to every library, every school, every university, every book shop that we can identify throughout the English-speaking world... everywhere where English is spoken or read with any degree of enthusiasm, people will be invited to contribute words. And the point is, the way they do it, the way they will be asked and instructed to do it, is to read voraciously and whenever they see a word, whether it's a preposition or a sesquipedalian monster, they are to... if it interests them and if where they read it, they see it in a sentence that illustrates the way that that word is used, offers the meaning of the day to that word, then they are to write it on a slip of paper... the top left-hand side you write the word, the chosen word, the catchword, which in this case is 'twilight'. Then the quotation, the quotation illustrates the meaning of the word. And underneath it, the citation, where it came from, whether it was printed or whether it was in manuscript... and then the reference, the volume, the page and so on... and send these slips of paper, these slips are the key to the making of this dictionary, into the headquarters of the dictionary.[29]
In the following decades, hundreds of thousands of contributions were sent to the editors.
In the 1990s several electronic bulletin board systems were based on user-generated content. Some of these systems have been converted into websites, including the film information site IMDb which started as rec.arts.movies in 1990. With the growth of the World Wide Web the focus moved to websites, several of which were based on user-generated content, including Wikipedia (2001) and Flickr (2004).
User-generated Internet video was popularized by YouTube, an online video platform founded by Chad Hurley, Jawed Karim and Steve Chen in April 2005. It enabled the video streaming of MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) user-generated content from anywhere on the World Wide Web.[30]
The BBC set up a pilot user-generated content team in April 2005 with 3 staff. In the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the Buncefield oil depot fire, the team was made permanent and was expanded, reflecting the arrival in the mainstream of the citizen journalist. After the Buncefield disaster the BBC received over 5,000 photos from viewers. The BBC does not normally pay for content generated by its viewers.
In 2006, CNN launched CNN iReport, a project designed to bring user-generated news content to CNN. Its rival Fox News Channel launched its project to bring in user-generated news, similarly titled "uReport". This was typical of major television news organizations in 2005–2006, who realized, particularly in the wake of the London 7 July bombings, that citizen journalism could now become a significant part of broadcast news.[6] Sky News, for example, regularly solicits for photographs and videos from its viewers.
User-generated content was featured in Time magazine's 2006 Person of the Year, in which the person of the year was "you", meaning all of the people who contribute to user-generated media, including YouTube, Wikipedia and Myspace.[7] A precursor to user-generated content uploaded on YouTube was America's Funniest Home Videos.[17]
Motivation for creating UGC
[edit]The benefits derived from user-generated content for the content host are clear, these include a low-cost promotion, positive impact on product sales, and fresh content. However, the benefit to the contributor is less direct. There are various theories behind the motivation for contributing user-generated content, ranging from altruistic, to social, to materialistic. Due to the high value of user-generated content, a number of sites use incentives to encourage their generation. These incentives can be generally categorized into implicit incentives and explicit incentives. Sometimes, users are also given monetary incentives to encourage them to create captivating and inspiring UGC.[31]
- Implicit incentives: Implicit incentives are not based on anything tangible and are related to users' motivations for creating and sharing content (UGC). Value motives are extrinsic purposes directly linked to sharing useful information and exchanging opinions about something relevant to the community. Likewise, users are motivated to solve a specific problem with the help of the shared knowledge of other users interacting on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter.[32] For example, a user creates a video on TikTok with doubts about how to use a product, and users interact by sharing their experiences. On the other hand, users can be socially motivated, through a social reward such as badges within social platforms. These badges are earned when users reach a certain level of participation which may or may not come with additional privileges. Yahoo! Answers is an example of this type of social incentive. The desire for social recognition, such as popularity or respect within a community, is closely tied to personal fulfillment and the enhancement of one's social standing. Social incentives cost the host site very little and can catalyze vital growth; however, their very nature requires a sizable existing community before it can function. Naver Knowledge-iN is another example of this type of social incentive. It uses a point system to encourage users to answer more questions by receiving points.[33] The desire for social recognition, such as popularity or respect within a community, is closely tied to personal fulfillment and enhancing one's social standing.[34] The identification motivation has strong external standardization and internalization of behavioral goals, such as social identity, that is, users will follow some subjective norms and images to constrain and practice their behaviors. The integration has the strongest external standardization and goal internalization, and the agent often integrates its actual actions with the subjective norms of the environment, so it has the effect of self-restraint and self-realization, such as the sense of belonging.[35]
- Explicit incentives: These incentives refer to tangible rewards. Explicit incentives can be split into externality and projection. External motivation is more inclined to economic and material incentives, such as the reward for engaging in a task, which has little internalization and lacks relevant external norms and constraints. Examples include financial payment, entry into a contest, a voucher, a coupon, or frequent traveler miles. Direct explicit incentives are easily understandable by most and have immediate value regardless of the community size; sites such as the Canadian shopping platform Wishabi and Amazon Mechanical Turk both use this type of financial incentive in slightly different ways to encourage users participation. The projective agent has some external norms, but the degree of internalization is not enough, that is, it has not been fully recognized by the actor. The drawback to explicit incentives is that they may cause the user to be subject to the overjustification effect, eventually believing the only reason for participating is for the explicit incentive. This reduces the influence of the other form of social or altruistic motivation, making it increasingly costly for the content host to retain long-term contributors.[36]
Paid content
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (February 2025) |
A growing subset of user-generated content (UGC) in this field is Paid UGC. It's primarily used by brands and businesses looking for organic content to leverage authenticity, perspective of their customers and trust associated with user generated content (UGC) for marketing purposes. According to several studies, a large percent of millennials and younger consumers look up information on products through social media and see UGC before making a purchase decision. Research suggests 78% of millennials and 70% of Gen-Z rely on UGC to determine their purchasing decision.
Paid UGC is distinct from normal UGC through how it's created. It's created by a UGC Creator, someone who creates authentic looking content on a product or service by brand's request. In return, they receive compensation in form of monetary rewards, free products, discounts, exclusive access or other valuable incentives. It is not to be confused with influencer marketing.
Unlike influencers, UGC developers focus on creating organic product reviews and the content isn't shared on their personal pages and on the company's page instead. On the other hand, influencers have a strong connection with their audience, showcasing branded content on their social media feeds and directly engaging with their followers. The structure of work differs since influencer deals are more comprehensive and agreements include creating and distributing content across their personal platforms.
However, it's possible for UGC Creators to function as macro-influencers if they have 100k+ followers. In this case, they can accept influencer deals where they post on their personal page in exchange for money or UGC deals where the brands post on their own page.
There are several ways where paid UGC differs from non-paid UGC:
- Incentive - Paid UGC Creators receive compensation for their contributions while non-paid UGC is created voluntarily by their customers
- Control - Brands can give specific guidelines and request what content they want the user to make, ensuring content aligns with the marketing objective
- Posting Channel - Unpaid UGC is posted unsolicited by customers on their profile while Paid UGC is posted directly on the brand's profile
Companies leveraging paid UGC see increased credibility with their platform, as customers connect with creators who feel like everyday people facing similar challenges. By showcasing the product as a real solution to a relatable problem, UGC makes brands more trustworthy and authentic. With commercial ads, customers can't put a face behind the high production edits and don't connect with it. A survey showcases that UGC is 85% better at increasing conversion rates than any studio content.[37] This showcases the content's ability to impact and potential reasons why companies increasingly utilize it for their social media strategy.
Nevertheless, there are concerns on the authenticity of content published on social media, particularly with the increasing prevalence of paid user generated content. Additionally, legal considerations such as copyright laws, privacy regulations and trademark protection play a role in content dissemination. As this field of work grows, there is potential for increased liability, particularly regarding disclosure requirements for paid content and will continue to evolve over time.
Ranking and assessment
[edit]The distribution of UGC across the Web provides a high volume data source that is accessible for analysis, and offers utility in enhancing the experiences of end users. Social science research can benefit from having access to the opinions of a population of users, and use this data to make inferences about their traits. Applications in information technology seek to mine end user data to support and improve machine-based processes, such as information retrieval and recommendation. However, processing the high volumes of data offered by UGC necessitate the ability to automatically sort and filter these data points according to their value.[38]
Determining the value of user contributions for assessment and ranking can be difficult due to the variation in the quality and structure of this data. The quality and structure of the data provided by UGC is application-dependent, and can include items such as tags, reviews, or comments that may or may not be accompanied by useful metadata. Additionally, the value of this data depends on the specific task for which it will be utilized and the available features of the application domain. Value can ultimately be defined and assessed according to whether the application will provide service to a crowd of humans, a single end user, or a platform designer.[38]
The variation of data and specificity of value has resulted in various approaches and methods for assessing and ranking UGC. The performance of each method essentially depends on the features and metrics that are available for analysis. Consequently, it is critical to have an understanding of the task objective and its relation to how the data is collected, structured, and represented in order to choose the most appropriate approach to utilizing it. The methods of assessment and ranking can be categorized into two classes: human-centered and machine-centered. Methods emphasizing human-centered utility consider the ranking and assessment problem in terms of the users and their interactions with the system, whereas the machine-centered method considers the problem in terms of machine learning and computation. The various methods of assessment and ranking can be classified into one of four approaches: community-based, user-based, designer-based, and hybrid.[38]
- Community-based approaches rely on establishing ground truth based on the wisdom of the crowd regarding the content of interest. The assessments provided by the community of end users is utilized to directly rank content within the system in human-centered methods. The machine-centered method applies these community judgments in training algorithms to automatically assess and rank UGC.
- User-based approaches emphasize the differences between individual users so that ranking and assessment can interactively adapt or be personalized given the particular requirements of each user. The human-centered approach accentuates interactive interfaces where the user can define and redefine their preferences as their interests shift. On the other hand, machine-centered approaches model the individual user according to explicit and implicit knowledge that is gathered through system interactions.
- Designer-based approaches primarily use machine-centered methods to essentially maximize the diversity of content presented to users in order to avoid constraining the space of topic selections or perspectives. The diversity of content can be assessed with respect to various dimensions, such as authorship, topics, sentiments, and named entities.
- Hybrid approaches seek to combine methods from the various frameworks in order to develop a more robust approach for assessing and ranking UGC. Approaches are most often combined in one of two ways: the crowd-based approach is often used to identify hyperlocal content for a user-based approach, or a user-based approach is used to maintain the intent of a designer-based approach.
- Key concepts
- Contribution is by users of a product rather than the firm
- Creative in nature and adds something new
- Posted online and generally accessible.
Types
[edit]There are a number of types of user-generated content: Internet forums, where people talk about different topics; blogs are services where users can post about multiple topics, product reviews on a supplier website or in social media; wikis such as Wikipedia and Fandom allow users, sometimes including anonymous users, to edit the content. Another type of user-generated content are social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, Snapchat, Twitch, TikTok or VK, where users interact with other people via chatting, writing messages, posting images or links, and sharing content. Media hosting sites such as YouTube and Vimeo allow users to post content. Some forms of user-generated content, such as a social commentary blog, can be considered as a form of citizen journalism.
Blogs
[edit]Blogs are websites created by individuals, groups, and associations. They mostly consist of journal-style text and enable interaction between a blogger and reader in the form of online comments.[39] Self-hosted blogs can be created by professional entities such as entrepreneurs and small businesses. Blog hosting platforms include WordPress, Blogger, and Medium; Typepad is often used by media companies; Weebly is geared for online shopping. Social networking blogging platforms include Tumblr, LiveJournal, and Weibo. Among the multiple blogs on the web, Boing Boing is a group blog with themes including technology and science fiction; HuffPost blogs include opinions on subjects such as politics, entertainment, and technology. There are also travel blogs such as Head for Points, Adventurous Kate, and an early form of The Points Guy.[40]
Websites
[edit]Entertainment social media and information sharing websites include Reddit, 9gag, 4chan, Upworthy and Newgrounds.[41] Sites like 9Gag allow users to create memes and quick video clips. Sites like Tech in Asia and BuzzFeed engage readers with professional communities by posting articles with user-generated comment sections.[42] Other websites include fanfiction sites such as FanFiction.Net; imageboards; artwork communities like DeviantArt; mobile photos and video sharing sites such as Picasa and Flickr; audio social networks such as SoundCloud; crowd funding or crowdsourcing sites like Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and ArtistShare; and customer review sites such as Yelp.
After launching in the mid-2000s, major UGC-based adult websites like Pornhub, YouPorn and xHamster and became the dominant mode of consumption and distribution of pornographic content on the internet. The appearance of pornographic content on sites like Wikipedia and Tumblr led moderators and site owners to institute stricter limits on uploads.[43]
The restaurant industry has also been altered by a review system the places more emphasis on online reviews and content from peers than traditional media reviews. In 2011 Yelp contained 70% of reviews for restaurants in the Seattle area compared to Food & Wine Magazine containing less than 5 percent.[44]
Video games
[edit]Video games can have fan-made content in the form of mods, fan patches, fan translations or server emulators.[45] Some games come with level editor programs to aid in their creation. A few massively multiplayer online games including Star Trek Online, Dota 2, and EverQuest 2 have UGC systems integrated into the game itself.[46] A metaverse can be a user-generated world, such as Second Life.[citation needed] Second Life is a 3-D virtual world which provides its users with tools to modify the game world and participate in an economy, trading user content created via online creation for virtual currency.[47] Game platforms like Fortnite and Roblox offer means for users to create their own games such as premade assets, tools to generate new assets, and scripting capabilities. These new creations can then be shared to other users via the platforms' content listings.[48]
Retailers
[edit]Some bargain hunting websites feature user-generated content, such as eBay, Dealsplus, and FatWallet which allow users to post, discuss, and control which bargains get promoted within the community. Because of the dependency of social interaction, these sites fall into the category of social commerce.
Educational
[edit]Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, is one of the largest user-generated content databases in the world. Platforms such as YouTube have frequently been used as an instructional aide. Organizations such as the Khan Academy and the Green brothers have used the platform to upload series of videos on topics such as math, science, and history to help aid viewers master or better understand the basics. Educational podcasts have also helped in teaching through an audio platform. Personal websites and messaging systems like Yahoo Messenger have also been used to transmit user-generated educational content. There have also been web forums where users give advice to each other.
Students can also manipulate digital images or video clips to their advantage and tag them with easy to find keywords then share them to friends and family worldwide. The category of "student performance content" has risen in the form of discussion boards and chat logs. Students could write reflective journals and diaries that may help others.[49] The websites SparkNotes and Shmoop are used to summarize and analyze books so that they are more accessible to the reader.
Photo sharing
[edit]Photo sharing websites are another popular form of UGC. Flickr is a site in which users are able to upload personal photos they have taken and label them in regards to their "motivation".[50]: 46 Flickr not only hosts images but makes them publicly available for reuse and reuse with modification.[50] Instagram is a social media platform that allows users to edit, upload and include location information with photos they post.[51] Panoramio.com and Flickr use metadata, such as GPS coordinates that allows for geographic placement of images.[52]
Video sharing
[edit]Video sharing websites are another popular form of UGC. YouTube and TikTok allow users to create and upload videos.
A popular form of User-Generated Video Content is shared in the form of video blogs, or vlogs.[53] Vlogs are a form of content that individuals create to capture their unique experiences. Creators of this type of content create a unique relationship with the viewer that is intimate and personal. The type of vlogs created vary in subject matter. These subjects are related but not limited to lifestyle, travel, or entertainment. Vlogging became popularized in the early years of the 2000’s. As opposed to traditional blogs, traditionally only containing words, vlogs give creators the ability to communicate with their audience through body language, moving images, and audio.[54]
Effect on journalism
[edit]The incorporation of user-generated content into mainstream journalism outlets is considered to have begun in 2005 with the BBC's creation of a user-generated content team, which was expanded and made permanent in the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings.[6] The incorporation of Web 2.0 technologies into news websites allowed user-generated content online to move from more social platforms such as MySpace, LiveJournal, and personal blogs, into the mainstream of online journalism, in the form of comments on news articles written by professional journalists, but also through surveys, content sharing, and other forms of citizen journalism.[55]
Since the mid-2000s, journalists and publishers have had to consider the effects that user-generated content has had on how news gets published, read, and shared. A 2016 study on publisher business models suggests that readers of online news sources value articles written both by professional journalists, as well as users—provided that those users are experts in a field relevant to the content that they create. In response to this, it is suggested that online news sites must consider themselves not only a source for articles and other types of journalism but also a platform for engagement and feedback from their communities. The ongoing engagement with a news site that is possible due to the interactive nature of user-generated content is considered a source of sustainable revenue for publishers of online journalism going forward.[56]
Journalists are increasingly sourcing UGC from platforms, such as Facebook and TikTok, as news shifts to a digital space.[57] This form of crowdsourcing can include using user content to support claims, using social media platforms to contact witnesses and obtain relevant images and videos for articles.[58]
Use in marketing
[edit]Companies can leverage user-generated content (UGC) to improve their products and services, through feedback obtained by users. Additionally, UGC can improve decision-making processes by strengthening potential consumers and guiding them toward purchasing and consumption decisions.[59] An increasing number of companies have been employing UGC techniques into their marketing efforts, such as Starbucks with their "White Cup Contest" campaign where customers competed to create the best doodle on their cups.[60]
The effectiveness of UGC in marketing has been shown to be significant as well. For instance, the "Share a Coke" by Coca-Cola campaign in which customers uploaded images of themselves with bottles to social media attributed to a two percent increase in revenue. Of millennials, UGC can influence purchase decisions up to fifty-nine percent of the time, and eighty-four percent say that UGC on company websites has at least some influence on what they buy, typically in a positive way. As a whole, consumers place peer recommendations and reviews above those of professionals.[citation needed]
User-generated content (UGC) can enhance marketing strategies by gathering relevant information from users and directing social media advertising efforts toward UGC marketing, which functions similarly to influencer marketing. However, each serves different purposes and plays distinct roles.[61] The distinction between UGC (User-Generated Content) creators and influencers lies primarily in their approaches to content creation. UGC creators are a varied range of individuals who share content based on their personal experiences with a product, service, or brand. They typically do not collaborate with specific brands, which lends authenticity to their posts and makes them relatable to their audience. In contrast, influencers have a significant and engaged following. They create branded content through sponsorships and paid partnerships with companies. Their role is to influence their followers' purchasing decisions, and their content is usually more polished and aligns closely with the branding and messaging of the companies they work with.[62]
User-generated content that is driven by one’s own individual incentive are rare, but equally as valuable to a brand’s reputation on social media.[63] This classification of User-Generated Content grant the brand with advertisement without the loss of expenses. Consumers who create User-Generated Content without an external reward can be referred to as ‘unofficial brand ambassadors’.[63] These creators are not contractually bonded to a company. Without the contractual requirement involved when producing a video, personally driven User-Generated Content creators are free to construct their own narrative for the product, brand, or service that is the topic of discussion. Organic User-Generated Content that positively reflects the brand or their product can lead to positive outcomes for the company. Alternatively, personally driven User-Generated content that is negative can lead to negative consequences. Brands that have experienced negative User-Generated content have seen negative impacts, such as dropped stock prices.[64] Due to the uncontrollable nature of personally driven User-Generated Content, some companies are uncertain on the value of motivating their consumers to create User-Generated Content. A few of the risks associated with this type of User-Generated content are creators expressing false information on the product, dishonest advantages of the product, or misleading representation of the brand or company.[63]
Criticism
[edit]The term "user-generated content" has received some criticism. The criticism to date has addressed issues of fairness, quality,[65] privacy,[66] the sustainable availability of creative work and effort among legal issues namely related to intellectual property rights such as copyrights etc.
Some commentators assert that the term "user" implies an illusory or unproductive distinction between different kinds of "publishers", with the term "users" exclusively used to characterize publishers who operate on a much smaller scale than traditional mass-media outlets or who operate for free.[67] Such classification is said to perpetuate an unfair distinction that some argue is diminishing because of the prevalence and affordability of the means of production and publication. A better response[according to whom?] might be to offer optional expressions that better capture the spirit and nature of such work, such as EGC, Entrepreneurial Generated Content (see external reference below).[citation needed]
Sometimes creative works made by individuals are lost because there are limited or no ways to precisely preserve creations when a UGC Web site service closes down. One example of such loss is the closing of the Disney massively multiplayer online game "VMK". VMK, like most games, has items that are traded from user to user. A number of these items are rare within the game. Users are able to use these items to create their own rooms, avatars and pin lanyard. This site shut down at 10 pm CDT on 21 May 2008. There are ways to preserve the essence, if not the entirety of such work through the users copying text and media to applications on their personal computers or recording live action or animated scenes using screen capture software, and then uploading elsewhere. Long before the Web, creative works were simply lost or went out of publication and disappeared from history unless individuals found ways to keep them in personal collections.[citation needed]
Another criticized aspect is the vast array of user-generated product and service reviews that can at times be misleading for consumer on the web. A study conducted at Cornell University found that an estimated 1 to 6 percent of positive user-generated online hotel reviews are fake.[68]
Another concern of platforms that rely heavily on user-generated content, such as Twitter and Facebook, is how easy it is to find people who holds the same opinions and interests in addition to how well they facilitate the creation of networks or closed groups.[69] While the strength of these services are that users can broaden their horizon by sharing their knowledge and connect with other people from around the world, these platforms also make it very easy to connect with only a restricted sample of people who holds similar opinions (see Filter bubble).[70]
There is also criticism regarding whether or not those who contribute to a platform should be paid for their content. In 2015, a group of 18 famous content creators on Vine attempted to negotiate a deal with Vine representatives to secure a $1.2 million contract for a guaranteed 12 videos a month.[71] This negotiation was not successful.
Legal issues
[edit]The ability for services to accept user-generated content opens up a number of legal concerns, from the broader sense to specific local laws. In general, knowing who committed the online crime is difficult because many use pseudonyms or remain anonymous. Sometimes it can be traced back. But in the case of a public coffee shop, they have no way of pinpointing the exact user. There is also a problem with the issues surrounding extremely harmful but not legal acts. For example, the posting of content that instigates a person's suicide. It is a criminal offense if there is proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" but different situations may produce different outcomes.[72] Depending on the country, there is certain laws that come with the Web 2.0. In the United States, the "Section 230" exemptions of the Communications Decency Act state that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This clause effectively provides a general immunity for websites that host user-generated content that is defamatory, deceptive or otherwise harmful, even if the operator knows that the third-party content is harmful and refuses to take it down. An exception to this general rule may exist if a website promises to take down the content and then fails to do so.[73]
Copyright laws
[edit]Copyright laws also play a factor in relation to user-generated content, as users may use such services to upload works—particularly videos—that they do not have the sufficient rights to distribute. In multiple cases, the use of these materials may be covered by local "fair use" laws, especially if the use of the material submitted is transformative.[74] Local laws also vary on who is liable for any resulting copyright infringements caused by user-generated content; in the United States, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)—a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), dictates safe harbor provisions for "online service providers" as defined under the act, which grants immunity from secondary liability for the copyright-infringing actions of their users, as long as they promptly remove access to allegedly infringing materials upon the receipt of a notice from a copyright holder or registered agent, and they do not have actual knowledge that their service is being used for infringing activities.[75][76]
In the UK, the Defamation Act of 1996 says that if a person is not the author, editor or publisher and did not know about the situation, they are not convicted. Furthermore, ISPs are not considered authors, editors, or publishers and they cannot have responsibility for people they have no "effective control" over. Just like the DMCA, once the ISP learns about the content, they must delete it immediately.[72] The European Union's approach is horizontal by nature, which means that civil and criminal liability issues are addressed under the Electronic Commerce Directive. Section 4 deals with liability of the ISP while conducting "mere conduit" services, caching and web hosting services.[77]
Research
[edit]A study on YouTube analyzing one of the video on demand systems was conducted in 2007. The length of the video had decreased by two-fold from the non-UGC content but they saw a fast production rate. The user behavior is what perpetuates the UGC. The act of P2P (peer-to-peer) was studied and saw a great benefit to the system. They also studied the impact of content aliasing, sharing of multiple copies, and illegal uploads.[78]
A study from York University in Ontario in 2012 conducted research that resulted in a proposed framework for comparing brand-related UGC and to understand how the strategy used by a company could influence the brand sentiment across different social media channels including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. The three scholars of this study examined two clothing brands, Lulu Lemon and American Apparel. The difference between these two brands is that Lulu Lemon had a social media following while American Apparel was the complete opposite with no social media following. Unsurprisingly, Lulu Lemon had much more positive contributions compared to American Apparel which had less positive contributions. Lulu Lemon has three times the number of positive contributions, 64 percent vs 22 percent for American Apparel on Twitter while on Facebook and YouTube, they had roughly an equal number of contributions. This proves that social media can influence how a brand is perceived, usually in a more positive light.[79] A study by Dhar and Chang, published in 2007, found that the volume of blogs posted on a music album was positively correlated with future sales of that album.[80]
See also
[edit]- Carr–Benkler wager
- Cognitive Surplus – Book by Clay Shirky
- Collective intelligence – Group intelligence that emerges from collective efforts
- Communal marketing – Type of advertising
- Consumer generated marketing – Type of advertising
- Content creation – Contribution of information to any media
- Content moderation – System to sort undesirable contributions
- Creative Commons – Organization designing open copyright licenses
- Crowdsourcing – Sourcing services or funds from a group
- Customer engagement – Type of interaction
- Digital public square
- Fan art – Artwork featuring aspects of a work of fiction created by a fan
- Fan fiction – Type of fiction created by fans of the original subject
- List of online image archives
- Modding – Customization of a product by the end user
- Networked information economy – 2006 book by Yochai Benkler
- Participatory culture – Cultural production made through social interactions of different communities and groups
- Participatory design – Active involvement of all stakeholders in the design process
- Prosumer – Person who consumes and produces a product
- User-centered design – Framework of processes with focus on users, uses, and tasks
- User-generated TV
- User innovation – Revolutional resource
- Web 2.0 – Websites that use technology beyond the static pages of the early Internet
General sources
[edit]
This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken from World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018, 202, University of Oxford, UNESCO.
Citations
[edit]- ^ a b Naab, T. K; Sehl, A (2017). "Studies of user-generated content: A systematic review". Journalism. 18 (10): 1256–1273. doi:10.1177/1464884916673557.
- ^ Roma, Paolo; Aloini, Davide (1 March 2019). "How does brand-related user-generated content differ across social media? Evidence reloaded". Journal of Business Research. 96: 322–339. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.055. hdl:11568/1000779. ISSN 0148-2963.
- ^ Kang, Kai; Lu, Jinxuan; Guo, Lingyun; Li, Wenlu (1 February 2021). "The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer engagement behavior through tie strength: Evidence from live streaming commerce platforms". International Journal of Information Management. 56 102251. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102251. ISSN 0268-4012.
- ^ Krumm, John; Davies, Nigel; Narayanaswami, Chandra (October 2008). "User-Generated Content". IEEE Pervasive Computing. 7 (4): 10–11. Bibcode:2008IPCom...7d8.85K. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2008.85. ISSN 1558-2590.
- ^ a b Berthon, Pierre; Pitt, Leyland; Kietzmann, Jan; McCarthy, Ian P. (August 2015). "CGIP: Managing Consumer-Generated Intellectual Property". California Management Review. 57 (4): 43–62. doi:10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.43. ISSN 0008-1256. S2CID 12234496.
- ^ a b c "The BBC May be the First Mainstream Industrial Medium to Adopt UCG". BBC News. 4 July 2006. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
- ^ a b Lev Grossman (13 December 2006). "You – Yes, You – Are TIME's Person of the Year". Time. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
- ^ "iReport". CNN.
- ^ Rauchfleisch, Adrian; Artho, Xenia; Metag, Julia; Post, Senja; Schäfer, Mike S. (July 2017). "How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises. Analyzing Twitter communication during the Brussels attacks". Social Media + Society. 3 (3): 205630511771788. doi:10.1177/2056305117717888. ISSN 2056-3051.
- ^ Kim, Mikyoung; Song, Doori (2 January 2018). "When brand-related UGC induces effectiveness on social media: the role of content sponsorship and content type". International Journal of Advertising. 37 (1): 105–124. doi:10.1080/02650487.2017.1349031. ISSN 0265-0487.
- ^ Liu, Xia; Burns, Alvin C.; Hou, Yingjian (3 April 2017). "An Investigation of Brand-Related User-Generated Content on Twitter". Journal of Advertising. 46 (2): 236–247. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1297273. ISSN 0091-3367.
- ^ Zhuang, W; Zeng, Q; Zhang, Y; Liu, C; Fan, W (2023). "What makes user-generated content more helpful on social media platforms? Insights from creator interactivity perspective". Information Processing & Management. 60 (2) 103201. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103201. ISSN 0306-4573.
- ^ Lou, Chen; Yuan, Shupei (2 January 2019). "Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media". Journal of Interactive Advertising. 19 (1): 58–73. doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501. ISSN 1525-2019.
- ^ Schivinski, Bruno; Muntinga, Daan G.; Pontes, Halley M.; Lukasik, Przemyslaw (10 February 2019). "Influencing COBRAs: the effects of brand equity on the consumer's propensity to engage with brand-related content on social media" (PDF). Journal of Strategic Marketing. 29: 1–23. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2019.1572641. ISSN 0965-254X. S2CID 169721474.
- ^ Klausen, Jytte (9 December 2014). "Tweeting the Jihad: Social Media Networks of Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 38 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/1057610x.2014.974948. hdl:10192/28992. ISSN 1057-610X. S2CID 145585333.
- ^ Battelle, John (5 December 2006). "Packaged Goods Media vs. Conversational Media, Part One (Updated)". Retrieved 23 August 2011.
- ^ a b Pavlik, John (2014). Converging Media (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 20, 140. ISBN 978-0-19-934230-3.
- ^ "Principles for User Generated Content Services". UGCprinciples.com. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ Jenkins, Henry (SODA), "Convergence Culture", New York University Press, New York
- ^ "Working Party on the Information Economy – Participative Web: User-Created Content" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 December 2010.
- ^ OECD (2007). Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. doi:10.1787/9789264037472-en. ISBN 978-92-64-03746-5.
- ^ Cisco Systems. 201. The Zettabyte Era: Trends and Analysis.
- ^ Internet Live Stats. 2017. Total number of websites.
- ^ TechCrunch. 2020. Facebook hits 2.5B users in Q4 but shares sink from slow profits. TechCrunch. Available at https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/facebook-earnings-q4-2019/. Accessed 18 February 2020.
- ^ World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018. UNESCO. 2018. p. 202.
- ^ Wikimedia Foundation. 2017. Wikipedia Statistics. Available at https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm Archived 15 May 2015 at archive.today.
- ^ Graham, Mark; Staumann, Ralph K.; Hogan, Bernie (2015). Digital Divisions of Labor and Informational Magnetism: Mapping Participation in Wikipedia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (6): 1158–1178.
- ^ tvochannel (8 June 2012). Simon Winchester on His Book The Meaning of Everything. Archived from the original on 19 December 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
- ^ "Transcript: Simon Winchester on his book The Meaning of Everything". TVO.org. 23 July 2005.
- ^ Matthew, Crick (2016). Power, Surveillance, and Culture in YouTube™'s Digital Sphere. IGI Global. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-4666-9856-7.
- ^ Toluna:"Mixing Financial, Social and Fun Incentives for Social Voting" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 July 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
- ^ Halliday, Sue Vaux (1 January 2016). "User-generated content about brands: Understanding its creators and consumers". Journal of Business Research. 69 (1): 137–144. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.027. hdl:2299/16723. ISSN 0148-2963.
- ^ Nam, Kevin Kyung; Ackerman, Mark S.; Adamic, Lada A. (4 April 2009). "Questions in, knowledge in?: A study of naver's question answering community". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '09. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 779–788. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518821. ISBN 978-1-60558-246-7.
- ^ Chen, Yan; Harper, F. Maxwell; Konstan, Joseph; Li, Sherry Xin (1 September 2010). "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens". American Economic Review. 100 (4): 1358–1398. doi:10.1257/aer.100.4.1358. ISSN 0002-8282.
- ^ Park, Do-Hyung; Lee, Sungwook (27 August 2021). "UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea". Sustainability. 13 (17): 9644. Bibcode:2021Sust...13.9644P. doi:10.3390/su13179644. ISSN 2071-1050.
- ^ wisdump:"The Overjustification Effect and User Generated Content". Archived from the original on 15 March 2010. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
- ^ "Offerpop Survey Identifies Gaps between How Consumers and Marketers Think about User-Generated Content". Archived from the original on 29 January 2025. Retrieved 27 February 2025.
- ^ a b c Momeni, E.; Cardie, C.; Diakopoulos, N. (2016). "A Survey on Assessment and Ranking Methodologies for User-Generated Content on the Web". ACM Computing Surveys. 48 (3): 41. doi:10.1145/2811282. S2CID 6302315.
- ^ Godwin-Jones, Robert (May 2003). "Blogs and Wikis: Environments for online collaboration" (PDF). Language Learning & Technology. 7 (2): 12–16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 April 2019. Retrieved 21 April 2019.
- ^ Street, Francesca (27 June 2017). "World's top 10 travel influencers, according to Forbes". CNN. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
- ^ "How Ray Chan started 9GAG, and a career in fun". Meld Magazine – Melbourne's international student news website. 24 July 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
- ^ "Tech in Asia – Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". techinasia.com. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
- ^ York, Jillian C. (27 March 2021). "Silicon Valley's puritanical war on sex". Salon.com. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
- ^ Anderson, Simon P.; Waldfogel, Joel; Strömberg, David, eds. (2016). Handbook of media economics. Volume 1B. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science. ISBN 978-0-444-63691-1. OCLC 932322941.[page needed]
- ^ You're in charge! – From vital patches to game cancellations, players are often intimately involved. by Christian Donlan on Eurogamer "Supreme Commander fans released Forged Alliance Forever and gave the game the online client it could otherwise only dream of. I haven't played it much, but I still got a tear in my eye when I read about the extents these coders had gone to. There's nothing quite so wonderful to witness as love, and this is surely love of the very purest order. [...] SupCom guys resurrect a series whose publisher had just gone under." (2 November 2013)
- ^ Jagneaux, David (18 August 2014). "The 5 Best User Generated Content Systems in MMOs". MMORPG.com. Cyber Creations Inc. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
- ^ Andrew Lavalee Now, Virtual Fashion Second Life Designers Make Real Money Creating Clothes For Simulation Game's Players, The Wall Street Journal, 22 September 2006
- ^ Garst, Aron (7 April 2023). "Fortnite and Roblox are dueling for the future of user-built games". The Verge. Retrieved 16 August 2025.
- ^ Lee, Mark J. W.; McLoughlin, Catherine (October 2007). "Teaching and Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: Empowering Students through Learner-Generated Content". International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Archived from the original on 7 February 2008. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
- ^ a b Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody. The Penguin Press.
- ^ Manikonda, Lydia; Hu, Yuheng; Kambhampati, Subbarao (29 October 2014). Analyzing User Activities, Demographics, Social Network Structure and User-Generated Content on Instagram. OCLC 1106208719.
- ^ "Chapter 21 Discussing thePotential of Crowdsourced Geographic Information for Urban Areas Monitoring Using the Panoramio Initiative: A Case Study in Rome, Italy". European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information. Ubiquity Press. 2016. ISBN 978-1-909188-79-2. JSTOR j.ctv3t5r09.
- ^ Adeloye, David; Makurumidze, Kudzai; Sarfo, Christian (2 October 2022). "User-generated videos and tourists' intention to visit". Anatolia. 33 (4): 658–671. doi:10.1080/13032917.2021.1986082.
- ^ Kennedy, Ümit (22 October 2025). "The Value of Vlogs: Past, Present, and Future". M/C Journal. 28 (4). doi:10.5204/mcj.3228.
- ^ Thurman, Neil (1 February 2008). "Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user-generated content initiatives by online news media" (PDF). New Media & Society. 10 (1): 139–157. doi:10.1177/1461444807085325. S2CID 516873.
- ^ Zeng, Michael A.; Dennstedt, Bianca; Koller, Hans (6 November 2016). "Democratizing Journalism – How User-Generated Content and User Communities Affect Publishers' Business Models". Creativity and Innovation Management. 25 (5): 536–551. doi:10.1111/caim.12199. S2CID 157677395.
- ^ "Journalism changed forever by user-generated content". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
- ^ "How Newsrooms Use User Generated Content". Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
- ^ Saura, Jose Ramon; Bennett, Dag R. (2019). "A Three-Stage method for Data Text Mining: Using UGC in Business Intelligence Analysis". Symmetry. 11 (4): 519. Bibcode:2019Symm...11..519S. doi:10.3390/sym11040519. ISSN 2073-8994.
- ^ David Hunegnaw (6 January 2017). "The Future of User-Generated Content is Owned". Retrieved 2 April 2016.
- ^ Saura, Jose Ramon; Reyes-Menendez, Ana; Palos-Sanchez, Pedro; Filipe, Ferrão (30 September 2019). "Discovering UGC Communities to Drive Marketing Strategies: Leveraging Data Visualization". Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being. 7 (3): 261–272. ISSN 2795-5044.
- ^ Romero-Rodriguez, Luis M.; Castillo-Abdul, Bárbara (2023). "Toward state-of-the-art on social marketing research in user-generated content (UGC) and influencers". Journal of Management Development. 42 (6): 425–435. doi:10.1108/JMD-11-2022-0285. ISSN 0262-1711.
- ^ a b c Romero-Rodriguez, Luis M.; Castillo-Abdul, Bárbara (24 August 2023). "Toward state-of-the-art on social marketing research in user-generated content (UGC) and influencers". Journal of Management Development. 42 (6): 425–435. doi:10.1108/JMD-11-2022-0285. ISSN 0262-1711.
- ^ Aras, Ajit; Xu, Xin; Peñaloza, Lisa (February 2022). "Deciphering B2B marketers' concerns in marketing 'with' clients: Further insights into how B2B characteristics foster and inhibit UGC generation and its leverage". Industrial Marketing Management. 101: 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.11.009.
- ^ Lukyanenko, Roman; Parsons, Jeffrey; Wiersma, Yolanda (2014). "The IQ of the Crowd: Understanding and Improving Information Quality in Structured User-Generated Content". Information Systems Research. 25 (4): 669–689. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0537.
- ^ Memarovic, Nemanja (2015). "Public Photos, Private Concerns: Uncovering Privacy Concerns of User Generated Content Created Through Networked Public Displays" (PDF). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PDF). pp. 171–177. doi:10.1145/2757710.2757739. ISBN 978-1-4503-3608-6. S2CID 17746880.
- ^ Kiss, Jemima (3 January 2007). "Guardian Unlimited website: The trouble with user generated content". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
- ^ White, Martha C. (7 April 2014). "Be Wary of Awesome and Scathing Online Reviews". NBC News. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
- ^ Du, Siying; Gregory, Steve (2016). "The Echo Chamber Effect in Twitter: Does community polarization increase?". Complex Networks & Their Applications V. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Vol. 693. Springer, Cham. pp. 373–378. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50901-3_30. ISBN 978-3-319-50900-6.
- ^ Bowell, Tracy (12 May 2017). "Response to the editorial 'Education in a post-truth world'". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 49 (6): 582–585. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1288805. ISSN 0013-1857.
- ^ Kircher, Madison Malone (31 October 2016). "Could Paying Millions of Dollars to Creators Have Saved Vine?". Intelligencer. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
- ^ a b George, Carlisle; Scerri, Jackie (24 April 2018). "Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content: Legal Challenges in the New Frontier". Journal of Information, Law and Technology.
- ^ "Is 'go away' the best response to complaints about user-generated content?". Computerworld. 23 July 2010. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ "Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 30 October 2007. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ "Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?". BBC News. London. 21 May 2010. Retrieved 5 February 2012.
- ^ Anderson, Nate (10 November 2011). "Why the feds smashed Megaupload". Ars Technica. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
- ^ "Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement" (PDF). WIPO. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ Cha Meeyoung et al. "I tube, you tube, we tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system." Internet Measurement Conference (2007).
- ^ Smith, Andrew; Fischer, Eileen; Yongjian, Chen (2012). "How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?". Journal of Interactive Marketing. 26 (2): 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002.
- ^ Dhar, Vasant; Chang, Elaine (November 2009). "Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-Generated Content on Music Sales". Journal of Interactive Marketing. 23 (4): 300–307. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.004. S2CID 245880964.
External links
[edit]- OECD study on the Participative Web: User Generated Content
- A Bigger Bang – an overview of the UGC trend on the Web in 2006
- Branding in the Age of Social Media
User-generated content
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Core Concepts
Definition
User-generated content (UGC) encompasses digital media such as text, images, videos, audio, and interactive elements produced by individuals outside professional media institutions, typically without financial compensation, and disseminated publicly via online platforms.[9] This form of content arises from contributions by ordinary users rather than paid experts or editorial teams, enabling direct sharing among audiences without intermediary curation.[1] UGC fundamentally contrasts with centralized, institutionally produced media by prioritizing individual initiative in content origination. Empirical criteria delineate UGC as involving voluntary creation by non-experts, devoid of formal editorial oversight at the point of production, and oriented toward public accessibility rather than personal or internal use.[10] Such content excludes brand-sponsored material, where incentives or directives undermine voluntariness, as well as synthetically generated outputs from AI systems that lack human authorship.[11] These boundaries ensure UGC reflects authentic user expression, grounded in decentralized production dynamics that bypass traditional gatekeeping structures inherent to professional media workflows.[12] The concept crystallized around 2005 amid the Web 2.0 framework, which formalized user participation as a core mechanism for content generation, shifting from passive consumption to active, prosumer-led dissemination. This terminology captured an emergent reality of distributed authorship, where technological affordances like open platforms facilitated unvetted contributions from non-professionals, altering the causal pathways of information flow from hierarchical to networked models.[12]Key Characteristics
User-generated content features exceptionally low barriers to entry, enabling widespread participation through ubiquitous access to internet-connected devices and user-friendly platforms. The introduction of the Apple iPhone on June 29, 2007, marked a pivotal shift by integrating high-quality cameras, intuitive interfaces, and app ecosystems that allowed instantaneous capture and upload of text, images, and videos without specialized equipment or skills.[13] [14] This technological enabler, combined with no-cost or low-cost posting mechanisms on sites like social media and forums, has causally driven massive scalability, as individuals contribute spontaneously driven by minimal friction rather than institutional approval. Anonymity provisions on platforms such as Reddit and certain social networks further erode entry hurdles by shielding contributors from reputational risks, permitting unvetted input from diverse, often unqualified sources.[15] Algorithmic systems exacerbate this by amplifying content based on engagement signals—likes, shares, and dwell time—rather than factual rigor, which propels novel ideas to prominence but indiscriminately elevates unreliable material.[16] These traits foster innovation through sheer volume and serendipitous discoveries, yet inherently introduce variability, as decentralized production lacks the gatekeeping that filters professional outputs. Empirical analyses reveal UGC's hallmark of high output volumes paired with subdued average quality, stemming from user priorities on speed and visibility over accuracy or depth.[15] For instance, anonymous regimes yield greater quantities of material but with diminished per-item effort, contrasting professional content's accountability via editors and verifiers that enforce standards.[15] This causal dynamic—wherein reduced oversight incentivizes proliferation at accuracy's expense—explains UGC's dual-edged nature: empowering grassroots creativity while propagating errors, as platforms' profit motives align with volume-driven metrics over curation.[17]Distinction from Professional Content
Professional content is characteristically produced by individuals or organizations with specialized expertise, subject to rigorous editorial processes, fact-checking protocols, and potential legal liability for inaccuracies, which impose incentives for accuracy and balance.[18] User-generated content (UGC), conversely, emerges from diverse, often anonymous contributors lacking formal qualifications or accountability, depending instead on asynchronous peer review or algorithmic promotion, which frequently fails to eliminate errors before dissemination.[19] This structural divergence fosters in UGC a higher propensity for factual distortions, as decentralized input amplifies unvetted claims without the causal checks of professional hierarchies. Empirical assessments underscore these reliability gaps; a 2005 Nature investigation of science entries found Wikipedia averaging four serious errors and 162 minor ones per article, compared to three serious errors and 123 minor in Encyclopædia Britannica, though Britannica critiqued the study's sampling as methodologically flawed.[19][20] Such variances arise because professional outlets enforce pre-publication verification to mitigate reputational and litigious risks, whereas UGC platforms prioritize volume and virality, enabling biases—personal, ideological, or confirmatory—to propagate unchecked, as users selectively engage with affirming material.[21] While UGC yields elevated engagement—studies indicate up to 28% higher interaction rates on social media relative to professionally curated posts—trust metrics reveal diminished perceived credibility for factual reliability, with news via digital platforms eliciting greater skepticism than traditional channels due to opaque sourcing and manipulation risks.[22][23] Professional content, despite its own institutional predispositions toward certain narratives, benefits from traceable authorship and correctability mechanisms that UGC's crowd-sourced model often lacks, trading cost efficiency for inconsistent quality assurance.[24]Historical Development
Early Precursors (Pre-1990s)
Letters to the editor in newspapers served as an early mechanism for public expression, enabling readers to submit opinions on published content from at least the 18th century onward, though widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries pre-1990.[3] These submissions, often edited for publication, represented a form of user-generated input distinct from professional journalism, fostering dialogue in the absence of digital platforms.[25] In the mid-20th century, self-published zines emerged as DIY outlets for niche communities, particularly in science fiction fandom from the 1930s but gaining momentum in the 1960s counterculture and 1970s punk scenes.[26] These handmade pamphlets allowed individuals to distribute personal writings, artwork, and critiques without institutional gatekeeping, reflecting a persistent drive for unmediated expression when mainstream channels were limited or inaccessible.[27] The advent of digital systems in the late 1970s introduced proto-online UGC through Bulletin Board Systems (BBS), with the first, CBBS, launched on February 16, 1978, by Ward Christensen and Randy Suess, enabling users to post messages and share files via dial-up modems.[28] By the 1980s, thousands of BBS operated worldwide, hosting user discussions in forums that prefigured modern social media, though constrained by single-line access limiting simultaneous participation to dozens per system.[29] Usenet, conceived in 1979 by Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis at Duke University and operational by 1980, facilitated distributed user posts across Unix-connected sites via UUCP protocol, growing to hundreds of newsgroups by the mid-1980s for topics from technical support to personal debates.[30] Commercial services like CompuServe, expanding consumer forums in the early 1980s, attracted tens of thousands of subscribers by 1984, where users exchanged messages and files, albeit at per-minute costs that curbed volume.[31] Technological bottlenecks, such as slow dial-up speeds and lack of persistent storage scalability, inherently restricted content proliferation and quality dilution observed in later eras.[32]Web 2.0 Emergence (2000s)
The concept of Web 2.0, denoting a participatory internet phase emphasizing user collaboration and content creation, emerged prominently in the mid-2000s following its coining by Tim O'Reilly during a 2004 brainstorming session organized by O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International.[33] This framework highlighted a departure from static, one-way web experiences toward dynamic platforms where users actively contributed, fostering ecosystems reliant on collective input rather than centralized production. Pivotal platforms catalyzed this transition: Wikipedia launched on January 15, 2001, as an open-editing encyclopedia that empowered volunteers to build and refine articles, amassing millions of entries through communal effort and establishing UGC as viable for knowledge dissemination.[34] In 2004, Facebook initiated on February 4 from Harvard University, initially for student networking but rapidly expanding to facilitate personal status updates, photo shares, and social connections, thereby scaling interpersonal UGC.[35] Concurrently, Flickr debuted in February 2004, introducing streamlined photo uploading, tagging, and community curation, which lowered barriers to visual content sharing and influenced subsequent media platforms.[36] YouTube followed in April 2005 with its first video upload, enabling amateur video hosting and viewing; by July 2006, it handled over 100 million daily video views, underscoring the explosive potential of accessible multimedia UGC.[37] Technological enablers underpinned this surge, notably broadband expansion and asynchronous web tools. U.S. home broadband adoption among adults climbed to 47% by March 2007, up from negligible penetration around 5% in 2000, providing the bandwidth necessary for uploading and streaming substantial user content volumes.[38] Complementing this, AJAX—coined in 2005 by Jesse James Garrett—integrated JavaScript, XML, and related techniques to enable seamless, partial page updates, supporting real-time editing and interactions central to platforms like Wikipedia and social feeds without disruptive reloads.[39] These factors drove the empirical pivot to a "read-write" web, where user scale directly fueled ad-supported revenue models by amplifying content diversity and engagement metrics.[33]Expansion and Mainstream Adoption (2010s–Present)
The 2010s marked a period of explosive growth in user-generated content (UGC), propelled by the proliferation of smartphones and mobile-first social platforms. Instagram, launched on October 6, 2010, rapidly amassed users—reaching 1 million within two months—by enabling seamless sharing of photos and short videos, which democratized visual UGC creation and sharing.[40][41] This era's smartphone adoption facilitated an overall surge in UGC volume, as advanced mobile cameras and apps lowered barriers to content production, shifting social media toward pervasive user-driven media over curated professional feeds.[42] TikTok's international rollout in 2017 further accelerated short-form video UGC, emphasizing algorithmic discovery of user-created clips that prioritized creative expression and rapid iteration, distinct from longer-form predecessors.[43] In the 2020s, UGC integrated deeply with e-commerce, enhancing consumer trust and decision-making on platforms like Shopify, where customer reviews and visuals directly influence purchases—79% of consumers report UGC as a key factor in buying choices.[44] The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a sharp uptick, with TikTok experiencing a 58% quarter-over-quarter increase in global downloads to 315 million in Q1 2020 alone, alongside heightened content uploads as users turned to platforms for entertainment and connection during lockdowns.[45] This surge extended UGC's reach into commercial applications, such as shoppable posts, but also strained platforms amid escalating volumes. Sustainability faces challenges from algorithmic dynamics and oversight. Social media feeds, optimized for engagement metrics, systematically favor viral, sensational UGC over verified accuracy, creating feedback loops that amplify low-effort or misleading content while marginalizing substantive contributions.[46][47] By 2024, this contributed to regulatory interventions, including the EU's Digital Services Act, which mandates platforms hosting UGC to assess and mitigate systemic risks like disinformation and illegal content dissemination, imposing transparency and moderation obligations effective February 17.[48][49] Amid market saturation—evidenced by persistent high UGC volumes yet shifting user behaviors toward curated or AI-assisted alternatives—the model's long-term viability hinges on balancing virality incentives with veracity enforcement, as unchecked expansion risks eroding platform utility through content dilution.[50]Motivations for Participation
Individual User Incentives
Users create user-generated content primarily for intrinsic motivations such as self-expression and the pursuit of social validation, which provide personal psychological rewards. Self-expression allows individuals to articulate personal experiences and opinions, fulfilling a basic human drive for autonomy and identity reinforcement, as identified in exploratory studies of consumer behavior on platforms like blogs and social media.[51] Social validation, manifested through metrics like likes and shares, activates brain reward pathways; functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research demonstrates that receiving peer approval on social media elicits dopamine release in regions such as the ventral striatum and nucleus accumbens, akin to responses from monetary or food rewards, with studies from the 2010s onward linking this to sustained engagement.[52][53] Extrinsic incentives further encourage participation by offering reputational gains within online communities. Systems like Reddit's karma points quantify user status based on upvotes, motivating contributions to build social capital and influence, as evidenced in analyses of collaborative platforms where reputation correlates with continued content production.[54] These mechanisms exploit users' desire for hierarchical recognition, where accumulated prestige translates to greater visibility and deference from peers, independent of content quality. Demographic data reveals that younger users, particularly those aged 18-34, account for the majority of UGC volume, comprising over 70% of creators in recent surveys of social media and video platforms, driven by dense peer networks and heightened sensitivity to social exclusion.[55] This group experiences amplified fear of missing out (FOMO), a psychological state where observing peers' participation prompts reciprocal creation to maintain relational bonds and avoid perceived irrelevance, with empirical links to increased posting behaviors during social events or trends.[56] From a causal perspective, individual creators rationally prioritize personal utility—immediate gratification from validation—over collective benefits like information quality, resulting in the dominance of low-effort formats such as short memes or reactive posts that minimize cognitive and temporal costs while maximizing potential rewards. This self-interested calculus explains why intrinsic drives favor quick, superficial contributions over labor-intensive ones, as higher-effort content yields diminishing marginal returns in attention economies dominated by algorithmic amplification of engaging, low-barrier signals.[57]Platform and Economic Drivers
Platforms monetize user-generated content (UGC) primarily through advertising revenue tied to content volume and user engagement, leveraging network effects to amplify scale. YouTube, for example, generated $36.1 billion in advertising revenue in 2024, with much of this stemming from ad impressions on user-uploaded videos that dominate viewership.[58] These dynamics create indirect network effects, where increased UGC variety draws more consumers, who then contribute further content, reducing platforms' reliance on proprietary production while boosting overall traffic and ad opportunities.[59] To sustain UGC supply, platforms deploy algorithmic recommendations and gamification mechanisms that prioritize high-engagement outputs, often at the expense of factual accuracy or depth. On Meta's platforms, approximately 89% of nonpaid feed content viewed in the United States during Q4 2023 consisted of user posts rather than content from followed pages, underscoring reliance on algorithmic curation of UGC to fill feeds.[60] Digital badges and similar incentives have been shown to dynamically influence contribution levels on UGC sites, incentivizing quantity over quality as algorithms reward metrics like views and interactions that correlate with sensationalism rather than verifiability.[61] From a causal economic perspective, UGC functions as an unremunerated input substituting for professional content labor, enabling platforms to externalize creation costs onto users while internalizing ad profits. This model aligns incentives toward volume-driven growth but misaligns with truth-seeking, as engagement-optimizing algorithms empirically favor provocative or misleading material that sustains attention without necessitating editorial oversight.[62] Platforms' profit maximization thus hinges on exploiting user effort as a low marginal-cost resource, rather than altruistic community building.Forms and Categories
Textual and Written Forms
Textual and written forms of user-generated content encompass a range of formats primarily serving personal expression, discussion, evaluation, and collaborative knowledge-building, including blogs, forum posts, product reviews, wiki edits, and microblogging updates. These differ from multimedia by relying solely on alphanumeric input, often structured as prose, lists, or threaded replies, which facilitates searchable archives but limits expressive depth compared to visual or interactive media.[63] Blogs represent long-form personal or thematic writing, with platforms like WordPress enabling over 522 million websites since its 2003 launch, many hosting user-authored posts on topics from daily journals to specialized commentary.[64] Forum posts, prevalent on sites dedicated to niche communities, accumulate in threaded discussions that foster ongoing debates, though empirical analyses show they often devolve into repetitive or unverified assertions due to minimal moderation.[65] Product reviews provide evaluative text, such as Amazon's dataset exceeding 233 million entries as of 2018, where users detail experiences with goods, influencing purchases through aggregated ratings but prone to bias from incentivized or fake submissions.[66] Wiki contributions involve editable textual articles, as in open platforms where users revise and expand entries collectively, emphasizing verifiable sourcing yet challenged by edit wars and vandalism that require administrative oversight. Microblogging, exemplified by Twitter's pre-2023 output peaking at 661 million daily tweets—mostly under 280 characters—prioritizes brevity for real-time sharing, enabling viral dissemination of ideas but frequently resulting in fragmented or context-lacking analysis due to character constraints.[67] Overall, text-based UGC dominates online volume, with projections indicating user-generated material comprising up to 78% of internet content by 2033, though much consists of short-form entries that prioritize speed over rigor, as evidenced by content analyses revealing high redundancy and low factual density in uncurated forums and social feeds.[68] This format's prevalence stems from low barriers to entry—requiring only keyboard input—but causal factors like algorithmic amplification reward quantity over quality, leading to echo chambers rather than deep discourse.[69]Visual and Multimedia Forms
Visual user-generated content primarily includes photographs, videos, and hybrid formats such as memes, produced by individuals using consumer devices and shared on digital platforms. Photographs often feature augmented elements like filters on Instagram, where users apply stylistic overlays to personal images, or Snapchat's temporary visuals incorporating augmented reality effects. Videos range from short clips on TikTok, typically under 60 seconds, to longer personal vlogs on YouTube, capturing daily experiences or creative expressions. Memes, blending static or animated images with overlaid text, serve as concise vehicles for humor, social commentary, or cultural critique, evolving through user remixing and adaptation.[70][71] The expansion of visual UGC accelerated post-2010 with widespread smartphone adoption, as integrated cameras enabled seamless capture and upload without specialized equipment. Standalone digital camera shipments fell 84% globally between 2010 and 2018, reflecting the shift to mobile devices for everyday imaging that fueled platforms' content ecosystems. By 2024, short-form videos—a dominant visual UGC category—demonstrated superior propagation, being 2.5 times more likely to garner shares or comments than long-form equivalents, driven by algorithmic amplification on sites like TikTok and Instagram Reels. This format's engagement stems from brevity aligning with diminished attention spans, with studies indicating 30% of such videos achieve over 81% completion rates among viewers.[72][73][74] These forms propagate rapidly due to inherent cognitive efficiencies in visual processing, where images elicit quicker emotional responses and recall than text alone, exploiting biases toward novelty and pattern recognition in human attention. Research on social media content shows visual elements heighten both shallow (views) and deep (retention) engagement, as platforms prioritize media yielding immediate interactions, further entrenching visual dominance in feeds. Memes exemplify this dynamic, with their templated visuals facilitating viral mutation across networks, as tracked in analyses of millions of instances revealing entropy-driven evolution over time.[75][76]Interactive and Collaborative Forms
Interactive and collaborative forms of user-generated content (UGC) encompass participatory mechanisms where multiple users engage iteratively or synchronously to co-create outputs, such as shared modifications, mappings, or consensus-driven initiatives, prioritizing collective accumulation over solitary contributions. These differ from static UGC by necessitating interplay, often yielding emergent structures like community economies or verified datasets, though they can amplify coordination challenges and conformist biases in decision-making. Empirical evidence indicates value in distributed expertise for niche domains, as seen in rapid error correction via user feedback loops, but outcomes hinge on moderation efficacy to mitigate disruptions.[77] In gaming, collaborative modding exemplifies this form, with users iteratively building extensions that integrate into core experiences, fostering virtual economies and custom features. For instance, Minecraft's modding ecosystem in the 2020s features thousands of economy-focused mods on platforms like CurseForge, enabling player-driven trading systems and shops that simulate real-world markets within multiplayer servers.[78] These mods, often developed and refined through community forums and version updates, have evolved into a creator economy, where modders monetize via donations or premium content, as reported in analyses of long-term community contributions.[79] Such interplay enhances gameplay diversity but risks fragmentation from version incompatibilities, limiting scalability without centralized oversight.[80] Crowdsourced mapping platforms harness user interactions for dynamic geospatial data, where contributors add, edit, and verify locations in real-time, building comprehensive, evolving maps. Google Maps, for example, relies on 120 million Local Guides providing 20 million daily updates, including business details, traffic incidents, and photo verifications, which improve accuracy through collective validation over proprietary surveys alone.[81] This collaborative model excels in scalability for global coverage, with studies on similar services like Mapillary showing patterns of bursty contributions from engaged users, though completeness varies by region due to participation biases toward urban or tech-savvy areas.[77] Unlike individual uploads, these forms accumulate value via iterative refinements, yet empirical assessments reveal persistent gaps in underrepresented locales, underscoring limits of voluntary coordination.[82] Online petitions and polls represent lighter interactive collaboration, where initiators propose causes and users signal support through signatures or votes, aggregating sentiment to influence external actors. Platforms like Change.org facilitate this by allowing shares and endorsements, with data from petition analyses indicating rapid signature growth in viral cases but low success thresholds—only 0.7% of petitions on comparable sites reach 10,000 signatures required for formal responses.[83] Participation patterns show temporal bursts driven by network effects, enabling collective pressure on policy but prone to echo chambers that reinforce prevailing views over diverse input.[84] In polls, real-time tallying fosters immediate interplay, as in community-voted feature requests, yet studies highlight how popularity cues can distort outcomes toward superficial appeal rather than substantive merit.[85] These forms demonstrate causal advantages in leveraging niche user knowledge for emergent accuracy, such as faster anomaly detection in maps via distributed reports, but face inherent risks of groupthink, where consensus skews toward majority preferences, and low reversion rates for flawed inputs without robust filters. In collaborative editing environments, for instance, disruptions like erroneous additions are typically identified and corrected swiftly through automated detection and peer review, preserving overall integrity despite occasional persistence.[86] Quantitatively, moderation reduces invalid contributions to minimal levels, enabling sustained growth in content volume while highlighting the need for algorithmic and human safeguards against coordinated misinformation campaigns.[87]Prominent Platforms and Implementations
Social Media and Sharing Sites
Social media platforms serve as central repositories for user-generated content, enabling individuals to upload text, images, videos, and multimedia directly to personalized feeds and discovery algorithms. These sites prioritize user-driven creation, where content is shared in real-time or curated for broader audiences through engagement metrics like likes, shares, and views. Major examples include Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok, and Reddit, each employing distinct mechanics to facilitate uploads and dissemination.[88] Facebook supports diverse UGC formats, including status updates, photos, videos, and live streams, distributed via chronological or algorithmic news feeds to connected networks. Users routinely post personal updates, memes, and short clips, with Meta reporting 3.5 billion Reels shared daily across its platforms in 2025, many originating from individual creators.[89] Viral loops emerge as shares and reactions amplify reach, often prioritizing content with high interaction rates.[90] X emphasizes concise textual posts, images, and videos in real-time feeds, suited for rapid discourse on current events. The platform limits users to 2,400 posts daily but sees aggregate output of approximately 500 million posts per day globally, driven by threaded replies and retweets that propagate content exponentially.[91][92] Instagram focuses on visual UGC through static posts, ephemeral Stories, and short Reels, with algorithms surfacing content based on user interests and past engagements. While exact daily upload figures remain undisclosed, the platform's emphasis on multimedia sharing integrates seamlessly with cross-posting from devices, fostering discovery via Explore pages and hashtag-driven feeds.[93] TikTok centers on short-form video uploads, where users create and edit clips with effects, music, and duets for the For You page—an algorithm-curated stream that promotes viral potential. An estimated 34 million videos are uploaded daily, with mechanics relying on rapid iteration: initial views determine broader distribution through watch time, shares, and challenges.[94] Reddit structures UGC around topic-specific subreddits, where users submit posts, links, and discussions moderated by community volunteers. Daily activity includes around 366,000 posts and 2.8 million comments, with upvote systems and rules enforcing relevance, enabling niche content to gain traction via subreddit-specific viral loops.[95] Collectively, these platforms host the predominant share of online UGC, with social media accounting for the bulk of daily uploads and interactions—exceeding billions globally—through user-initiated sharing amplified by algorithmic recommendations and social proof.[96]Review and E-commerce Sites
Review and e-commerce sites leverage user-generated content through customer reviews, star ratings, and testimonials to guide purchasing decisions on platforms such as Amazon and Yelp. These features enable consumers to share experiences post-purchase, often including detailed textual feedback alongside numerical scores from one to five stars. Amazon's "Verified Purchase" badge, introduced to enhance credibility, denotes reviews from buyers who acquired the product through the site at a price available to typical shoppers, thereby distinguishing them from unverified submissions.[97][98] Such content exerts substantial influence on sales, with positive reviews prompting 30.5% of consumers to finalize purchases according to aggregated data from recent surveys. Nielsen research underscores the broader sway of word-of-mouth endorsements, including online reviews, as 74% of consumers identify them as a primary factor in buying choices. Empirical studies further quantify the economic linkage, demonstrating that shoppers engaging with user-generated reviews convert at rates 161% higher than those who do not, reflecting a causal preference for authentic peer validation over branded promotions.[99][100][101] This trust stems from the perceived impartiality of individual accounts relative to advertiser-controlled messaging, where 54% of consumers equate online reviews to personal referrals in reliability. Platforms mitigate manipulation by filtering suspicious patterns, yet vulnerabilities remain evident in historical scandals, such as the proliferation of incentivized fakes prompting Amazon's 2015 policy overhaul to prohibit paid endorsements. Regulatory responses intensified in the late 2010s, with the Federal Trade Commission securing its inaugural enforcement in 2019 against a seller for commissioning deceptive Amazon reviews on dietary supplements, imposing penalties to deter fabricated testimonials.[102][103][104]Collaborative Knowledge Platforms
Collaborative knowledge platforms enable users to collectively build and refine structured repositories of factual information, typically through wiki-based editing or moderated question-and-answer formats, with an emphasis on verifiability and communal oversight.[105] These systems differ from opinion-oriented social media by enforcing policies that prioritize neutral, sourced content over personal expression or viral sharing.[106] Wikipedia, established on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, exemplifies this model as a volunteer-edited online encyclopedia.[105] As of October 2025, its English edition comprises over 7 million articles, supported by nearly 98 million edits across Wikimedia projects in 2024, reflecting sustained user contributions.[107] Key features include version history for tracking changes, a verifiability policy mandating reliable secondary sources for claims, and neutral point of view guidelines to minimize editorial slant.[105] Stack Overflow, launched on September 15, 2008, by Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood, extends this approach to domain-specific Q&A, focusing on programming and technical queries to aggregate expert knowledge.[108] It employs upvoting, downvoting, and moderation to elevate sourced, reproducible answers while discouraging speculative or unverified input, fostering a repository used by millions of developers.[106] These platforms achieve broad coverage of verifiable topics—Wikipedia's English articles span diverse fields with millions of citations—but face limitations, including an estimated 80% factual accuracy rate in comparative studies, lower than traditional encyclopedias' 95-96%.[109] Coverage gaps persist, such as underrepresentation of prominent figures in computer science (52% omission) and psychology (62%), often due to sourcing challenges.[109] Disputes over systemic biases are recurrent, with analyses identifying ideological skews, including overreliance on mainstream media sources prone to left-leaning institutional tilts, and coordinated efforts undermining neutrality in politically charged entries like those on Israel.[110] [111] In contrast to freeform user-generated content on social platforms, which amplifies unmoderated opinions and lacks mandatory sourcing, collaborative knowledge sites institutionalize evidence-based revision and dispute resolution, though enforcement relies on volunteer consensus and can falter under advocacy pressures.[112] This structure promotes cumulative knowledge aggregation but requires ongoing vigilance against inherited biases from cited materials.[110]Positive Impacts and Benefits
Marketing and Economic Effects
User-generated content (UGC) confers a significant trust advantage in marketing, with 92% of global consumers reporting greater trust in recommendations from peers—encompassing UGC such as reviews and social shares—than in traditional advertising forms like branded ads or paid promotions.[113] This preference stems from UGC's perceived authenticity, reducing skepticism toward commercial messaging and thereby elevating conversion potential, as evidenced by persistent citation of the metric in e-commerce analyses despite its origins in 2012 data.[8] Empirical data links UGC integration to measurable revenue gains, including a 154% uplift in revenue per visitor on sites featuring UGC, derived from aggregated e-commerce experiments controlling for traffic variables.[114] Similarly, product pages displaying UGC achieve 161% higher conversion rates compared to those without, isolating UGC's causal role via A/B testing methodologies that minimize confounding factors like page design.[115] These effects arise mechanistically from UGC signaling social proof, prompting purchase decisions through mimetic behavior rather than direct persuasion, though outcomes vary by curation quality and audience alignment. Brands leverage UGC economically through strategies like reposting curated user submissions on social channels and e-commerce platforms, which amplify reach at minimal marginal cost.[116] Platforms such as Yotpo facilitate this by aggregating and moderating UGC for seamless integration, yielding ancillary benefits like a 50% reduction in cost-per-click when incorporated into Facebook ads, as UGC boosts click-through rates fourfold via organic relevance.[117] Overall, UGC's production economics—relying on voluntary contributions—render it far more scalable than commissioned content, with the global UGC marketing market valued at $5.36 billion in recent estimates and projected to reach $32.6 billion by 2030, driven by these efficiencies.[118] Causal limits persist, however, as unverified UGC risks eroding trust if not vetted, underscoring the need for platforms to enforce authenticity checks to sustain economic returns.Enhancement of Engagement and Diversity
User-generated content (UGC) enhances platform engagement by fostering authentic interactions that outperform traditional branded material. Social media posts incorporating UGC exhibit engagement rates 28% higher than those from official brand sources, driven by users' preference for peer-validated experiences over curated promotions.[22][119] This metric, derived from analyses of platforms like Instagram and TikTok, reflects increased likes, shares, and comments, as users invest more time responding to relatable, community-sourced contributions.[88] Platforms leveraging UGC promote viewpoint diversity through expansive niche communities. Reddit, for instance, hosts over 100,000 active subreddits as of 2024, enabling specialized forums on topics ranging from obscure scientific debates to cultural subcultures often overlooked by mainstream outlets.[120] These self-organized spaces allow users to curate content aligned with specific interests, theoretically broadening exposure to multifaceted perspectives beyond centralized editorial control.[121] In empirical instances, UGC has amplified underrepresented voices during crises via citizen journalism. During the Arab Spring protests beginning in December 2010, participants uploaded real-time videos and eyewitness accounts to platforms like Twitter and YouTube, circumventing state-controlled media and providing verifiable documentation of events in regions with restricted access.[122] Similar dynamics occurred in subsequent events, such as the 2011 Egyptian revolution, where UGC filled informational gaps, enabling global awareness of on-the-ground realities.[123] Notwithstanding these gains, UGC-driven diversity frequently manifests as superficial fragmentation due to algorithmic curation. Recommendation systems on UGC platforms prioritize content reinforcing user affinities, creating silos that segment audiences into parallel echo-like structures rather than fostering integrative exposure.[124] Research on network algorithms indicates this design amplifies homogeneity within groups, undermining the potential for cross-viewpoint engagement despite the nominal proliferation of communities.[125]Negative Impacts and Challenges
Degradation of Information Quality
User-generated content (UGC) platforms often exhibit elevated levels of factual inaccuracies due to the absence of rigorous editorial oversight inherent in traditional curated media. Content analyses of Wikipedia, a prominent UGC repository, reveal persistent flaws; for instance, an examination of 1,181 citation pairs involving retracted scientific papers found that 71.6% were problematic, with many introduced or retained post-retraction, indicating incomplete error correction mechanisms.[126] Revert rates on Wikipedia serve as a proxy for edit quality, where low-quality contributions—such as vandalism or factual errors—are frequently undone to enforce standards, underscoring the ongoing need for such interventions to sustain reliability.[127][128] The causal factors stem from contributors' limited accountability and incentives, as most UGC creators face no professional repercussions for inaccuracies, unlike journalists bound by reputational and legal stakes. Empirical studies comparing platforms confirm this disparity: news shared on social media, dominated by UGC, tends to be less accurate than content from established news outlets, prompting researchers to note that diminished trust in such sources may reflect genuine quality deficits rather than undue skepticism.[129] Verification practices exacerbate the issue; UNESCO data indicate that 41.6% of internet users gauge content truthfulness primarily by popularity metrics like likes and views, bypassing substantive checks. This dynamic creates a signal-to-noise imbalance, where exponential UGC volume—billions of posts daily on platforms like social media—overwhelms sporadic curation, allowing errors to persist amid noise. Analyses of UGC integration in news workflows show low formal verification, with only 16% of amateur footage actively credited by outlets in global samples, highlighting systemic gaps in quality control.[130] Consequently, UGC dominance correlates with degraded overall information reliability, as unfiltered contributions dilute verified knowledge without proportional accuracy gains.[131]Proliferation of Misinformation
User-generated content on social media platforms facilitates the rapid dissemination of misinformation, with empirical analyses indicating that false information diffuses significantly faster than accurate reports. A comprehensive study of over 126,000 Twitter cascades involving true and false news stories from 2006 to 2017 found that falsehoods reached 1,500 individuals approximately six times faster than truths, were 70% more likely to be retweeted, and penetrated deeper into networks through multiple levels of diffusion.[132] This pattern held across various topics, including politics, science, and urban legends, driven primarily by human users rather than automated accounts, as novelty and emotional arousal prompted broader sharing.[133] During the COVID-19 pandemic, user-generated posts on Twitter exemplified this scale, with misinformation comprising up to 28.8% of sampled content in some analyses, often amplified through retweets and replies originating from individual users.[134] Such content, lacking editorial oversight inherent in traditional media, vehicles the majority of online misinformation encounters, as social platforms' reliance on crowdsourced material enables unchecked viral propagation; for instance, false claims about vaccines or transmission spread via user threads and shares, outpacing corrections from official sources. Bots contribute to amplification, accounting for an estimated 10-15% of activity in misinformation campaigns on these sites, though human engagement remains the primary vector.[135][136] Platform moderation efforts have proven insufficient against this proliferation, with audits revealing persistent failures to curb false narratives; for example, Twitter's interventions during the pandemic inadequately reduced vaccine misinformation visibility, allowing sustained user-driven spread despite policy updates.[137] These shortcomings underscore causal mechanisms where algorithmic prioritization of engaging—often false—content exacerbates reach, challenging assumptions in some academic and media analyses that downplay harms by framing misinformation as mere "diverse discourse," when data demonstrate tangible diffusion advantages for inaccuracies. Empirical evidence prioritizes interventions targeting virality drivers over tolerance of unverified user inputs, as unchecked UGC erodes discernment without proportional benefits in information diversity.[138]Effects on Traditional Institutions
Transformation of Journalism
User-generated content (UGC) has fundamentally disrupted traditional journalism by allowing non-professionals to contribute real-time reports, often bypassing established editorial filters. During the Arab Spring uprisings beginning in December 2010, citizens in Egypt and other countries uploaded videos and eyewitness accounts to platforms like Facebook and YouTube, documenting protests and government responses where professional journalists faced restrictions or censorship.[139][140] This citizen journalism provided faster initial coverage of breaking events compared to traditional outlets reliant on on-site reporters, enabling global audiences to witness unfolding crises almost instantaneously.[141] However, the integration of UGC introduces significant quality trade-offs, as unvetted submissions frequently contain errors due to the absence of journalistic verification processes. Studies of online news incorporating user reports have found error rates exceeding 60% in stories lacking rigorous fact-checking, often stemming from reliance on secondary or eyewitness sources without corroboration.[142] In hybrid models, where outlets blend professional editing with UGC—such as The New York Times soliciting citizen photos and videos for event coverage—the speed of dissemination accelerates news cycles but erodes traditional gatekeeping, as editors must rapidly assess unfiltered inputs amid volume pressures.[143][144] This shift causally diminishes centralized control over information flow, empowering decentralized, real-time contributions that challenge journalistic authority while fostering participatory hybrids like those pioneered in reports on UGC integration since 2010.[145] Outlets adopting these models report enhanced immediacy for events like disasters or protests, yet face persistent risks of amplifying inaccuracies without scalable verification, as UGC's volume overwhelms pre-publication scrutiny.[146][147]Influence on Media Pluralism and Gatekeeping
User-generated content (UGC) has disrupted traditional media gatekeeping by enabling individuals to bypass centralized editorial controls, thereby expanding the supply of diverse perspectives. Prior to the widespread adoption of UGC platforms around 2005, media ownership in the United States exhibited high concentration, with approximately 10 corporations controlling the majority of outlets by 2000, limiting pluralism to a narrow range of viewpoints filtered through professional gatekeepers.[148] Platforms such as YouTube and early social media sites facilitated direct publication of user-created material, increasing the count of available sources and allowing marginalized or niche voices to gain visibility without institutional approval.[65] However, this proliferation has fragmented audiences into ideological silos, undermining effective pluralism through reduced cross-ideological exposure. Empirical analyses from the 2020s reveal that while UGC expands formal viewpoint diversity, algorithmic recommendations and user homophily drive consumption toward confirmatory content, with studies showing users encountering like-minded sources on platforms like Facebook over 60% of the time.[149] A 2022 systematic review of echo chamber research highlights self-selection as a primary mechanism, where individuals curate feeds to avoid dissonance, resulting in polarized networks that limit shared factual encounters.[150] Polarization metrics, such as affective partisan divides tracked by Pew Research since 2014, indicate heightened hostility across groups despite broader content availability, suggesting UGC correlates with diminished common ground rather than integrative discourse.[151] The net impact on media pluralism remains contested, as increased source multiplicity does not equate to balanced exposure; causal dynamics in platform designs prioritizing engagement amplify extreme positions within silos, fostering an environment where viewpoint abundance coexists with factual divergence and reduced deliberative potential. Research on social media's role in polarization, including a 2021 PNAS analysis, demonstrates platform-specific variations in echo chamber strength, with feed-based systems exacerbating isolation more than search-oriented ones, challenging assumptions of unqualified pluralism gains.[152] This fragmentation effect, evidenced by longitudinal Twitter data on COVID-19 discourse showing distinct partisan clusters with minimal overlap, implies that UGC's democratizing promise is offset by structural incentives reinforcing division over synthesis.[153]Criticisms and Controversies
Bias, Echo Chambers, and Ideological Skew
User-generated content platforms, through algorithmic curation, foster echo chambers by prioritizing content aligned with users' past interactions, resulting in feeds that exclude a substantial portion of dissenting material. Research indicates that social media users encounter approximately 70% less content diverging from their prior engagement patterns, homogenizing exposure and reinforcing preexisting beliefs.[154] This personalization, driven by engagement-maximizing algorithms on platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X), amplifies selective perception, where users self-select into ideologically congruent networks, exacerbating polarization. Empirical analyses from the early 2020s confirm that such dynamics persist across major platforms, with homogeneous feeds comprising over two-thirds of daily consumption in politically active cohorts.[152] Ideological skew manifests in asymmetric moderation practices, where right-leaning user-generated content faces disproportionate suppression compared to left-leaning equivalents. A 2024 Yale School of Management study of Twitter suspensions during the 2020 U.S. election found that accounts using pro-Trump or conservative hashtags experienced significantly higher removal rates than those with pro-Biden or liberal tags, even after controlling for content volume and type.[155] Related investigations into shadowbanning—algorithmic deprioritization without notification—reveal patterns of reduced visibility for conservative viewpoints, often attributed to platform policies and human moderators favoring institutional consensus over contrarian narratives.[156] These disparities, documented between 2020 and 2024, stem not solely from user behavior but from enforcement asymmetries, challenging claims of neutral algorithmic governance.[157] Controversies arise as user-generated content enables rapid dissemination of populist perspectives that contest elite-driven narratives, countering the relative uniformity of traditional media outlets. Platforms' amplification of explicit populist rhetoric—such as anti-establishment appeals—generates elevated engagement metrics, with posts eliciting 20-50% more retweets, favorites, and replies than non-populist counterparts in controlled experiments.[158] This dynamic has empirically boosted support for populist candidates in Europe and the U.S., where social media exposure correlates with shifts in voting patterns toward right-wing variants challenging centralized authority.[159] While critics decry this as fostering distrust in institutions, evidence suggests user-generated content disrupts legacy media's own echo effects, where coverage skews toward progressive viewpoints, as quantified by content analysis showing 80-90% alignment with mainstream consensus in outlets like CNN and The New York Times during polarized events. Such UGC-driven pluralism, though contentious, introduces causal pressures for broader viewpoint contestation absent in gatekept traditional journalism.Moderation Failures and Exploitation Risks
User-generated content platforms have frequently failed to curb harassment and doxxing, allowing persistent campaigns reminiscent of the 2014 Gamergate controversy to recur in the 2020s, such as the "Gamergate 2.0" backlash against diverse game developers involving targeted online abuse on social media.[160][161] Doxxing, the public release of private information to incite harm, has escalated with technology enabling rapid dissemination, often evading initial moderation due to the volume of UGC.[162] Inadequate moderation has also facilitated the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children receiving 20.5 million CyberTipline reports in 2024, including nearly 6.3 million involving apparent CSAM, much of it shared via unmonitored UGC on social platforms.[163] This proliferation stems from algorithmic prioritization of engaging content outpacing detection, allowing harmful shares to amass views before removal.[164] Exploitation risks arise from bots and click farms generating artificial UGC, with estimates indicating around 11% of Google reviews are fake, distorting consumer decisions and platform integrity.[165] In e-commerce and social media, such automated content floods systems, comprising a significant portion of interactions—up to 10-15% in some review aggregates—exacerbated by the sheer scale of daily uploads that overwhelms human oversight.[166] Causal factors include platforms' reliance on AI moderation amid explosive growth, as seen in Meta's systems where content removal often lags behind recommendation algorithms, permitting violations to gain traction before intervention in 2023-2025 analyses.[167] Automation excels at bulk detection but falters in contextual nuances, leading to gaps in addressing sophisticated harms like coordinated bot campaigns or subtle exploitation.[168] Debates pit free speech advocates, who argue excessive controls stifle discourse, against safety proponents emphasizing harm prevention; empirical data reveals over-moderation disproportionately affects conservative-leaning content, with pro-Trump hashtag accounts suspended at higher rates than pro-Biden equivalents in platform studies, potentially reinforcing echo chambers through uneven enforcement.[155][169] However, some research attributes elevated removals to higher incidences of misinformation in right-leaning UGC rather than inherent bias, highlighting the tension between scale-driven errors and content quality disparities.[170]Legal and Ethical Dimensions
Intellectual Property Concerns
User-generated content platforms face persistent intellectual property challenges stemming from users' unauthorized incorporation of copyrighted materials, such as music, video clips, and images, into uploads like remixes, reactions, and compilations. This practice results in millions of infringement claims annually across major sites; for example, Google reported receiving over 8 billion cumulative DMCA notices by early 2024, with takedown requests targeting infringing files at a rate exceeding 78 million per year system-wide.[171][172] On YouTube, the Content ID automated system processes billions of matches yearly, blocking or monetizing videos to redirect revenue to rights holders, yet manual DMCA webform removals and disputes highlight ongoing user-platform tensions, as uploaders challenge fewer than 10% of actions in recent periods.[173][174] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, through Section 512 safe harbor provisions, shields platforms hosting user-generated content from secondary liability provided they lack actual knowledge of infringement, do not receive financial benefit from directing users to it, and promptly remove flagged material upon notice.[175][176] This mechanism enables UGC scalability by deferring enforcement to post-upload detection and takedowns, but it causally exacerbates violations due to minimal upfront user accountability—creators can easily disseminate derivative works at low cost, with platforms incentivized to host volume over verification to maximize engagement.[177] Consequently, systemic infringements persist, as evidenced by the low dispute rates and high claim volumes, where users exploit the notice-and-takedown process without bearing equivalent risks to traditional creators. Lawsuits in the 2020s underscore these dynamics, particularly around unlicensed music in short-form UGC; Universal Music Group sued Bang Energy in 2021 for direct infringement via unauthorized songs in TikTok videos promoted by influencers, holding the company liable despite platform involvement.[178] Similarly, Warner Music Group filed suit against DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse in May 2025 for embedding over 200 copyrighted tracks in TikTok promotional posts without licenses, seeking damages for commercial exploitation.[179] Fair use arguments in such cases often hinge on transformative elements—like parody or commentary—but courts apply fact-specific tests under 17 U.S.C. § 107, frequently rejecting defenses when UGC primarily reproduces originals for entertainment rather than criticism, amplifying debates over automated filters' overreach in preempting ambiguous reuse.[180][181]Platform Liability and Regulatory Responses
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996, grants interactive computer services immunity from civil liability for third-party content posted by users, while also protecting platforms that moderate content in good faith to address objectionable material.[182] This provision has shielded platforms hosting user-generated content (UGC) from lawsuits over defamation, misinformation, or other harms originating from users, fostering the growth of online forums, social media, and marketplaces.[183] Post-2010s criticisms of Section 230 intensified following high-profile incidents of online harms, including the spread of election-related misinformation in 2016 and violent extremism content linked to platforms like Facebook and YouTube.[184] Detractors argue the immunity enables platforms to profit from UGC-driven engagement without sufficient accountability for foreseeable harms, such as child exploitation material or public health disinformation, with some legal scholars contending that platforms' algorithmic amplification exacerbates these issues beyond mere passive hosting.[185] Empirical analyses indicate that without such protections, platforms might face distributor-level liability, potentially leading to over-moderation and reduced UGC hosting, as evidenced by pre-Section 230 cases where services like Prodigy were held liable for user posts.[186] In response, the European Union adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA) in 2022, with full enforcement for large platforms beginning in 2024, imposing obligations on intermediaries to enhance transparency in UGC moderation practices.[49] The DSA requires very large online platforms (VLOPs) to disclose moderation policies, report on content removal decisions, and provide data on systemic risks like disinformation dissemination, aiming to mitigate harms while preserving intermediary neutrality.[187] Non-compliance can result in fines up to 6% of global turnover, prompting platforms like Meta and X to publish annual transparency reports detailing UGC handling.[188] In the United States, reform efforts have accelerated, with bills in 2024 and 2025 targeting exceptions to Section 230 for misinformation and algorithmic harms; for instance, proposals like the Health Misinformation Act seek to strip immunity for platforms amplifying false health claims during public emergencies.[189] Advocates for reform, including some lawmakers and consumer groups, assert that conditional liability would incentivize proactive harm reduction without undermining core protections, citing data from platforms' own disclosures showing millions of UGC removals annually for violations.[190] Opponents, drawing from economic studies, warn that expanded liability could diminish UGC volume by incentivizing platforms to err toward restriction, potentially contracting online expression by 20-30% as smaller hosts exit due to litigation costs, consistent with models of chilled speech under stricter regimes.[191][192] This debate underscores a causal tension: while deregulation risks unmitigated harms, over-regulation may foster private censorship exceeding government mandates, as platforms preemptively suppress borderline content to minimize exposure.[193]Empirical Research and Evidence
Methodological Approaches
Research on user-generated content (UGC) employs diverse methodological approaches to ensure empirical rigor and replicability, including content analysis, surveys, experiments, and large-scale data collection techniques. Content analysis, a cornerstone method, involves systematic coding of UGC samples to identify themes, sentiments, or factual accuracy, often using predefined schemes or grounded theory for emergent patterns in social media posts.[63] [194] Surveys and controlled experiments complement this by assessing user perceptions of UGC credibility or behavioral responses, such as through randomized exposure to content variants on platforms like Twitter or Instagram.[195] These approaches prioritize transparent protocols, such as inter-coder reliability checks in content analysis (typically targeting Cohen's kappa > 0.70) and detailed survey instruments shared via appendices for replication.[65] Large-scale quantitative methods leverage big data scraping and application programming interfaces (APIs) to handle UGC volumes, which can exceed billions of items across platforms; for instance, pre-2023 Twitter APIs enabled access to tweet streams for virality modeling via network analysis or regression on shares and engagements.[195] Natural language processing (NLP) tools, such as topic modeling with latent Dirichlet allocation, automate classification at scale while preserving raw data logs for verification. However, challenges persist, including sampling biases from API rate limits or algorithmic curation, which skew toward popular content, and the sheer data volume requiring computational resources like distributed processing frameworks.[196] Privacy constraints and platform policy shifts, such as X's 2023 API restrictions limiting free access to basic endpoints, further complicate replicability, necessitating ethical approvals and anonymization protocols.[195] To enhance validity, mixed-methods designs integrate qualitative depth—such as semi-structured user interviews to contextualize UGC motivations—with quantitative metrics, like econometric models of diffusion or machine learning predictions of misinformation spread.[197] This triangulation mitigates single-method limitations, with replicability fostered through hybrid datasets (e.g., combining scraped corpora with interview transcripts) and open-source code repositories for analytical pipelines. Empirical studies underscore the need for robustness checks, including sensitivity analyses for sampling variations, to address inherent UGC heterogeneities like multilingualism or multimedia formats.[195] [198]Key Studies on Efficacy and Harms
Studies in the 2010s demonstrated that user-generated content (UGC) in marketing contexts often yields higher engagement and purchase intention compared to brand-generated alternatives. For instance, a 2019 analysis of social media posts found UGC led to elevated purchase intentions relative to disclosed advertisements and brand posts, attributing this to perceived authenticity.[199] Similarly, UGC-based advertisements achieved 4x higher click-through rates and a 50% reduction in cost-per-click compared to average ads, suggesting improved return on investment through organic consumer endorsement.[200] On harms, empirical work highlights accelerated diffusion of low-quality or misleading UGC. Vosoughi et al. (2018) analyzed over 126,000 Twitter cascades from 2006–2017, revealing false news stories spread farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than true ones, with falsehoods 70% more likely to be retweeted and reaching 1,500 users on average versus 1,000 for truths, driven by novelty rather than homophily.[132] Quality assessments in the 2020s underscore pervasive issues, with reviews indicating substantial portions of UGC exhibit low helpfulness due to inconsistencies in professionalism, opinion balance, and topic relevance; for example, a 2023 examination of product Q&As showed helpfulness positively tied to these factors but absent in much amateur output.[201] Platform-level effects reveal UGC's dual role in boosting engagement while eroding trust. A 2017 experiment found incorporating UGC into news articles reduced perceived trustworthiness, even after controlling for reader traits, due to associations with unverified sources.[202] Conversely, UGC enhances news consumption via YouTube, where engagement correlates with algorithmic exposure, though trust gaps persist amid misinformation risks.[147] Recent 2023–2025 research distinguishes AI-generated content from traditional UGC, with consumers rating AI outputs lower on credibility and emotional resonance; a 2025 Philippine study reported AI-designed materials scoring significantly below human UGC across trust, relevance, and persuasion metrics (p < 0.001).[203] Causal analyses point to understudied asymmetries in UGC harms, particularly platform moderation favoring left-leaning content. A 2025 review of tech censorship found right-leaning videos, often hosting skeptical UGC like on vaccines, faced disproportionate suppression via algorithmic deboosting and removal, amplifying hyped misinformation narratives while muting counterviews.[204] Moderation data from YouTube indicated higher removal rates for comments under conservative-leaning uploads, justified by platforms as policy enforcement but yielding skewed visibility.[157] These findings suggest causal pathways where efficacy gains from UGC are offset by selective harms, warranting scrutiny of institutional biases in empirical datasets.References
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics/revert_rate
.jpg)