Content Moderation Case Study: Bumble Shuts Down Sharon Stone's Account, Not Believing It's Really Her (2019)
from the bees-and-catfish dept
Summary: Almost any platform that allows users to create accounts eventually has to deal with questions of identity and impersonation. Many platforms set up systems like “verified” or “trusted” users for certain recognizable accounts. Others focus on real name policies, or trying to verify all users. But services often discover challenges that come with celebrity users and verification.
While it’s one thing to do verified accounts on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram that are often used for promotion and connection, dating site verification is a bit different and more complicated. Setting up fake personas on dating sites to lure people into misleading relationships (for a wide variety of reasons) is so common that it led to the creation of a whole new term: catfishing. Many dating sites now take user verification quite seriously, not just to avoid catfishing issues, but for the safety and protection of their userbase -- who, by definition, are usually trying to meet someone new with the hope of getting together in person.
Bumble is a popular dating app which was built up around the premise of being safer, and more responsive to the needs of female daters. The site includes a verification feature that requests the user upload selfie poses that match poses in photos sent to the user -- which are then reviewed by a team member. The idea is that if a user were faking images by pulling them from online profiles or generating them via AI, it’s much harder to match the pose.
Apparently, however, this form of verification ran into a problem when the actress Sharon Stone decided to use Bumble to meet potential dates. Users who matched with her, perhaps understandably, had difficulty believing that a famous Hollywood star would be using a dating app like Bumble, and they reported the account. Staff reviewers at Bumble were (again, reasonably) equally suspicious of the account, leading them to suspend it.
Bumble quickly restored the account, and did so in a good natured way, wishing her luck in “finding your honey.”
Decisions to be made by Bumble:
-
What systems do you use to verify users are who they say they are?
-
How much weight should be given to user reports that people they matched with are not real?
-
How do you handle celebrities, whose accounts people may not believe are legitimate?
-
What appeals process should there be for blocked accounts that were deemed to be fake?
-
On dating apps in particular, user safety is key, so should sites default towards overblocking, rather than being hesitant?
-
Are there other forms of verification that would alleviate problems similar to the one Stone faced here?
-
Stone was able to get her account reinstated quickly because of her fame; does the existing appeals process work as well for users who don’t have that pull?
“I think that I said no to a couple of people that thought that it would be a nice way to be not-so-kind back,” she explained. “I think some people don’t like to hear, ‘No, no I don’t want to go out with you.'”
She also noted that she has “made some nice friends” on the site.
In the meantime, some have argued that Bumble purposely chose to block Stone in order to generate publicity. Of course, this would only work if the company knew that Stone would complain about the block publicly, which certainly was not guaranteed.
Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, dating, identity, sharon stone
Companies: bumble
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
A) Has all the signs of a typical Hollywood publicity stunt to get an aging actress back to public notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
B) As usual, Maz has ZERO evidence for his assertions, simply assumes all is as appears. He has the instincts of a new-born puppy.
C) ZERO suspicion even of an actress!? -- Who undoubtedly has a publicity agent specifically for purpose!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
Why does that even matter? Moderation is the same regardless of whatever Stone's motivation. They have nothing to do with each other. The consideration of how things are moderated have nothing to do with suspicion, that's all you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
D) And whom certainly has NO need to go on a web-site to get dates, even haggard and toothless as she must be by now. She must be over 40, 'cause I saw her c -- er, stunt in the 80s...
SO my bet is was arranged long in advance -- with Stone getting money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
And F) This is no small item to aged geezers susceptible to her cheap "sex appeal". HIGH VALUE to the site. -- And ONLY half dozen people tops would KNOW she's paid.
G) TYPICAL PUBLICITY STUNT. -- And Maz helps, witless and unsuspecting as ever, OR witful and sneaky, take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
Or he simply doesn't give a fuck about a rando's opinion like yours. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you hate content creators, blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut up, Wallace!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you know Stone's part NOT guaranteed?
TYPICAL PUBLICITY STUNT. -- And Maz helps
yes, you've figured it out - the lynchpin to this particular hollywood publicity stunt was a dry summary of events published 15 months later on a niche tech blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to use app safely
Yeah, more dating apps are using verification feature to avoid the scammers or fake account and build a safe & comfortable online community. Also, I search relevant phrase online and find this page http://thedatingring.com/safe-to-use-dating-apps.html may be useful for newbie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]