Bad Experiences and Encounters Framework (BEEF) Survey: Data collection: June 27 - July 8, 2021

Raw text

Transcribed text as recorded, including headers and formatting fragments.

1 Bad Experiences and Encounters Framework (BEEF) Survey Data collection: June 27-July 8, 2021 (UXR) Signals and Insights Platform Background 2 Why are we doing this? To develop a holistic, consistent picture of user bad experiences on Instagram that allows us to track our progress each half. Holistic: TRIPS focuses on policy-violating experiences, but there are additional causes of bad experiences on Instagram. By contrast, the BEEF Survey pulls issues from the Bad Experiences and Encounters Framework, which sourced issues from all of our user input channels. Consistent: We have many sources of valuable user data, such as individual UXR surveys and interviews, FRX reports, flytrap, app store reviews, and social media listening. But, it's hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons between these data points, because of differences in how they're collected and weighted. The BEEF Survey asks a random sample of users the top 22 issues from BEEF, so we can compare and contrast easily. Track our progress: Without a control group, it's impossible to determine causality from our other signals. The BEEF Survey was fielded to both the well-being holdout and production groups. 3 Survey timeline Came 123-co-1115-MIS-KK Document 36-2 Fled 01/19 Page 5 of 36 Date To do Status April 12 Agree on which TRIPS questions to include Complete April 19 Use framework project results to generate proposal for additional survey constructs Complete April 26 Develop survey questions/ look for questions Complete from existing surveys May 3 Develop survey questions/ look for questions Complete from existing surveys May 10 Submit to research review Complete (June 3) May 24 June 3 Submit to survey review Complete (June 9) May 31 June 10 Submit to translations Complete (June 29) June 14 June 30 June 21 July 6 June 28 August 25 Launch survey Data cleaning Data weighting/appending July 19 August 26 Data cleaning July 26 September 7 Analysis/reporting October 4 Socialization October 11 v2 Framework October 18 Begin BEEF Survey v2 development December 16 Launch BEEF Survey v2 (code freeze Dec 16- Jan 4) 3 Complete (June 30) Complete Complete (August 25) Complete (September 6) In progress What's next? The plan is to add findings to this deck and the Bad Experiences Working Group as I go, with the goal of having a draft completed in the next two weeks. After that, I will focus on 1:1 and small group meetings with various teams, to share the findings relevant to them. As I engage in socialization of the findings, I will also begin a literature review of work done since the v1 BEEF, to see if any new issues have emerged that should be included in the next BEEF Survey (v2 Framework, although it will be much more lightweight than the v1 effort). I will use the current BEEF Survey and any new insights gathered during the v2 Framework to begin the survey development process for the v2 BEEF Survey. Case 1:23-co-1115-MS-4X Document: 36-2 Fand 01/1904 Page 6 of 36 Survey questions, issues Questions that are also in TRIPS are highlighted in yellow. All questions had the same response options as TRIPS: 'Yes, during the last 7 days,' 'Yes, but more than 7 days ago,' and 'No.' False or misleading Have you ever seen anything on Instagram that was false or misleading? Violence Have you ever seen any violent, bloody, or disturbing images on Instagram that bothered you? Hate (witness) Have you ever seen anyone discriminating against people on Instagram because of their gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, or another part of their identity? Bullying (witness) Have you ever seen anyone do any of these things to someone else on SRG drug sales Bullying (target) Nudity Negative Sociall Comparison Instagram? -Insult or disrespect them -Contact them in an inappropriate way -Damage their reputation -Threaten them -Exclude them or leave them out Have you ever seen anyone trying to buy or sell any of the following things on Instagram? -Prescription drugs -Illegal drugs Has anyone ever done any of these things to you on Instagram? -Insulted or disrespected you -Contacted you in an inappropriate way -Damaged your reputation -Threatened you -Excluded you or left you out Have you ever seen nudity or sexual images on Instagram that you didn't want to see? Have you ever felt worse about yourself because of other peoples' posts on Instagram? Unwanted advances Account security Civic content Have you ever received unwanted sexual advances on Instagram? Have you ever been unable to access your Instagram account, either because of a lost password or because your account was hacked? Have you ever felt that you have seen too many political posts on Instagram? Impersonation Have you ever found out that a Instagram account was pretending to be you? Self-harm Have you ever seen someone harm themselves, or threaten to do so, on Instagram? Spam/fake account contact Have you ever been contacted on Instagram by an account that seemed fake? Over enforcement Have you ever felt that Instagram was wrong when it removed a post or video for violating the rules? Audience limitation Have you felt that not enough people see the things you share on Instagram? Have you ever had difficulty posting a picture or video to Instagram? Usability, action Transparency Have you ever felt Instagram isn't transparent about why it removes posts that are against the rules? Usability, consumption Have you ever experienced the Instagram app freezing, crashing, or closing Data privacy Perceived control Commerciality unexpectedly? Have you ever had concerns about the way Instagram might use data and information about you? Have you ever felt a lack of control over what you see on Instagram? Have you ever felt that you have seen too many ads on Instagram? 4 Came 123-co-LLIS-MIS-KK Document 36-2 and 01/190 Page 7 of 36 Survey questions and log data, context All questions with response options can be found here. Question name Surface Frequency Question text In the last 7 days, where in Instagram did you see this? Please select all that apply. In the last 7 days, how many times have you seen something like this? Log data Country Name country Table dim_ig_users:instagram App use interface_128: instagram_classic dim_ig_users:instagram Gender gender dim_ig_users:instagram Followers followers Which specific emotions did you feel? Please select all dim_ig_users:instagram Specific emotion felt that apply. Public or private account is_private dim_ig_users:instagram Length of emotional reaction Feed posts feed_media_7d dim_ig_creators: instagram Perceived support For how long after the experience did you feel this way? Thinking about this experience, did you feel supported by Instagram? Reels posted reels_media_7d dim_ig_creators:instagram Stories posted story_media_7d dim_ig_creators: instagram Public media posted public_media_7d dim_ig_creators: instagram Action taken (both on and off app) Stops posting? Known person, online/offline Age (13-15, 16-17, 18.) Did you take any of the following actions as a result of this experience? Select all that apply. Did this experience stop or discourage you from posting on Instagram? What's your relationship with the account that posted this? What is your age? iOS vs Android Creator segmentation ig_creator_segment dim_ig_creators: instagram primary_interface dim_ig_user_primary_device instagram RAM ram_class dim_ig_user_primary_device instagram Hi NAC views* viewer_high_nac_vpvs_17 ig_user_social_comparison_metrics: instagram Overall views viewer_vpvs_w_prediction_17 ig_user_social_comparison_metrics:instagram num_sessions time_spent Sessions time spent sum_meaningful_engagement_viewe ig_meaningful_engagement_user_agg.instagra meaningful impressions" r_score m ig_user_app_session_counts:instagram ig_user_app_session_counts:instagram Came 123-co-ELLIS-MIS-KK Document 36-2 Fed 01/1901 Page of 36 Sample size by issue The sample size was calculated to detect a 1% absolute difference between the two groups (production and holdout). Part of that calculation is the baseline prevalence of each issue; past research was used to provide those estimates. If an issue wasn't actively being worked on by a team in the IG Community Pillar in H1 2021, then that issue was only asked in the production group. Each respondent was asked about five issues (randomly chosen from the set of 22). If they reported experiencing at least one of the five issues, the survey system randomly chose one of the issues they said yes to and asked a series of follow-up questions. If they said they didn't experience any of the five issues, they were asked their age followed by a series of questions unrelated to this report. Issue Baseline Detectable n per Prevalence drop #of Subtotal, Subtotal, group groups planned actual Account security (access) Audience limitation 33.70% 20.00% 19.00% 24,641 32.70% 34,813 1 24,641 26,907 2 69,626 71,845 Bullying and harassment, target 7.80% 6.80% 10,622 2 21,244 24,790 Bullying and harassment, witness 22.43% 21.43% 26,875 2 53,750 57,744 Commerciality 21.50% 20.50% 26,042 1 26,042 28,498 Data privacy 31.90% 30.90% 33,813 2 67,626 69,802 Drugs and Related Goods 3.64% 2.64% 4,774 2 9,548 12,242 False or Misleading 26.68% 25.68% 30,337 2 60,674 64,854 Graphic Violence 11.30% 10.30% 15,122 2 30,244 34,928 Hate Witness 19.73% 18.73% 24,381 2 48,762 53,283 Impersonation (first person) 3.10% 2.10% 301 1 301 5,880 Negative Social Comparison 20.00% 19.00% 24,641 2 49,282 53,954 Nudity 13.46% 12.46% 17,707 2 35,414 40,571 Over enforcement 30.00% 29.00% 32,647 2 65,294 68,226 Perceived control/sense of place 23.10% 22.10% 27,458 1 27,458 29,774 Political posts 28.20% 27.20% 31,437 1 31,437 33,516 Unwanted advances/solicitation 30.00% 29.00% 32,647 2 65,294 69,146 Self-harm (witness) 10.00% 9.00% 13,495 1 13,495 15,830 Spam (fake account) 50.00% 49.00% 39,240 1 39,240 40,629 Transparency 30.00% 29.00% 32,647 2 65,294 66,966 Usability/action-oriented 21.30% 20.30% 25,859 2 51,718 57,160 Usability/consumption-oriented 26.20% 25.20% 29,974 2 59,948 67,836 question n = 916,332 994,381 respondent n = 238,246 237,923 7 5 Came 1:23-co-1115-MIS-K Document: 36-2 Fled 01/19 Page of 36 Planned analyses (green = drafts complete) 1. Issue prevalence for holdout vs prod, and overall 2. Issue prevalence by subgroups a. Age b. Creators c. Gender 3. Add frequency, surface, and other context data to the issue prevalence tables 4. Additional cuts by subgroups a. RAM class/interface b. NAC (negative experience content) 17 c. App use (number of sessions, time spent) d. Meaningful impressions e. Surface 5. Issue-specific analyses. 22 issues by 9 follow-up questions-I'll start with issues that our teams are actively working on, then go by prevalence 6. Grouping of issues. Analyze the ways individual issues cluster (or don't) with each other. Assuming I find one or more commonalities between issues, I'll use those to create rubrics to understand the full slate of issues users experience 8 Results Case 1:23-cv-01115-MIS-KK Document 36-3 Fled Page 11 of 36 Issue rates, full dataset Improvements in perceived violence and usability action, but a decline in perceived data privacy The issues in the table to the right are ranked by the percentage of respondents in the full dataset who selected "Yes, during the last 7 days." Other response options were "Yes, but more than 7 days ago" and "No." Those responses are not displayed here for space reasons. Production refers to respondents in the production version of IG, while Holdout refers to respondents in the Community Pillar holdout group in H1. If an IG team was not actively working on an issue in H1, the survey question was only asked to the production condition. Statistical tests for differences in column proportions between the production and holdout groups were conducted, with and without a Bonferroni correction for alpha error inflation (no difference in results). There was a statistically significant improvement in perceptions of violence ("Have you ever seen any violent, bloody, or disturbing images on Instagram that bothered you?" and usability action ("Have you ever had difficulty posting a picture or video to Instagram?") between production and holdout. There was also a statistically significant decline in perceptions of data privacy ("Have you ever had concerns about the way Instagram might use data and information about you?" between production and holdout. 6 Overall Column N% n Production Column N% Holdout n Column N% Π commerciality misinfo 48.2% 11,493 30.3% 19,879 bully witness 28.3% 16,567 audience limitation 26.8% 19,545 48.2% 11,493 30.6% 8,253 28.1% 6,685 26.8% 8,058 usability passive 25.5% 17,344 25.6% 7,626 30.1% 11,626 28.5% 9,882 26.8% 11,488 25.5% 9,718 hate witness 25.3% 13,710 25.1% 5,511 data privacy 24.4% 17,293 24.8%b 7,277 25.5% 8,199 24.1% 10,016 perceived control 23.9% 5,904 23.9% 5,904 fake acct 1st 21.8% 7,417 21.8% 7,417 negative comparison 19.2% 10,549 19.3%a 4,311 19.2%a 6,237 transparency 17.5% 11,931 17.5%a 4,896 17.5%a 7,036 political posts 17.0% 4,779 17.0%a 4,779 nudity 16.3% 6,751 16.2% 2,688 16.4%a 4,063 over enforcement 14.8% 10,206 14.8% 4,239 14.7% 5,967 violence 12.8% 4,580 12.3%b 1,764 13.2% 2,816 unwanted advances 11.9% 8,364 12.0% 3,486 11.8% 4,878 usability action 10.7% 6,208 10.4%b 2,481 10.9% 3,727 bully target self harm acct security drugs impersonation 1st 8.1% 2,055 6.7% 894 3.9% 880 3.9% 494 3.7% 178 7.8%a 802 6.7%a 894 3.9%a 880 4.0%a 201 3.7%a 178 8.2% 1,254 3.9%a 292 Note: Values in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p<0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions. Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances. All significant findings remain significant when using a Bonferroni correction for alpha error inflation. An expanded table with 95% confidence intervals can be found here. Case 1:23-0-01115-MS-KK Document 36-3904 Page 12 of 36 Issue rates and frequencies in last 7 days Commerciality and political posts have the highest frequencies among respondents who have experienced the issue, while fake accounts and impersonation have the lowest. If a respondent experienced an issue (i.e., responded "Yes, during the last 7 days"), they were then asked how often they experienced that issue. The percentage of respondents selecting each of the answer options is displayed in the table, along with the average frequency (first yellow column).. The issues (rows) are ranked by average frequency, with the most frequent issues on top. Commerciality and political posts have the highest frequencies, while impersonation and fake account contact have the lowest. The second yellow column is a rate x frequency composite score (the rate of an issue being experienced in the dataset, multiplied by the average frequency). Commerciality also has the highest score on this metric, followed by bullying witness; impersonation is the lowest. Finally, the last two columns rank the issues by issue rate (penultimate column) and issue x frequency composite (last column). Highlighted in blue are the issues with the biggest deltas: the largest is political posts, which ranks 12th by issue rate, but 7th by issue rate x frequency. Rank Average Rate x Issue freq Freq Issue x freq Issue Rate Frequency, last 7 days % commerciality political posts nudity Once 2-3 6-9 10+ 48.2% 5.3% 22.1% 28.8% 15.0% 28.8% 17.0% 7.3% 31.8% 27.4% 10.0% 23.4% 4-5 5.90 2.85 1 1 5.20 0.88 12 7 16.3% 18.0% 39.3% 17.0% 6.8% 19.0% 4.33 0.71 13 11 perceived control hate witness 23.9% 15.7% 38.4% 22.2% 7.2% 16.5% 4.31 1.03 8 6 25.3% 16.9% 41.4% 18.2% 5.8% 17.6% 4.22 1.07 6 5 negative comparison 19.2% 17.9% 39.1% 19.3% 7.2% 16.6% 4.22 0.81 10 9 audience limitation 26.8% 25.4% 34.9% 17.5% 6.0% 16.2% 3.99 1.07 4 4 bully witness 28.3% 23.0% 39.6% 16.0% 4.8% 16.6% 3.96 1.12 3 2 misinfo 30.3% 21.7% 46.3% 15.3% 4.4% 12.3% 3.62 1.10 2 3 usability passive 25.5% 21.5% 46.0% 18.5% 5.6% 8.4% 3.46 0.88 5 8 violence 12.8% 27.4% 42.9% 14.6% 4.5% 10.6% bully target transparency 3.9% 34.1% 37.6% 11.3% 6.7% 33.9% 38.3% 12.3% 8.1% 38.3% 34.0% 12.0% 17.5% 35.7% 37.9% 11.7% 5.1% 12.0% 4.3% 11.1% 3.9% 11.8% 3.5% 11.2% 3.40 0.44 15 15 3.36 0.13 21 20 3.28 0.22 19 19 3.24 0.26 18 18 3.21 0.56 11 13 unwanted advances acct security 3.9% 50.4% 22.9% 10.1% 11.9% 33.5% 40.1% 12.9% 5.0% 8.4% 2.3% 14.3% 3.14 0.37 16 16 data privacy 24.4% 38.4% 35.2% 12.3% 3.9% 10.3% over enforcement 14.8% 36.1% 37.9% 12.7% 3.6% 9.8% usability action 10.7% 34.0% 40.1% 13.5% 3.5% 9.0% fake acct 1st 21.8% 38.9% 40.9% 10.8% impersonation 1st 3.4% 6.1% 3.7% 54.1% 25.5% 7.0% 3.8% 9.6% 3.13 0.12 3.13 0.76 3.13 0.46 14 3.11 0.33 17 2.76 0.60 9 20 21 7 10 14 17 12 2.75 0.10 22 22 drugs self harm "In order to calculate the average, the frequency range selected by the respondent was converted into a single number: Once 1,2-3-25 45-45,69-7.5, and 10-10. 10 11 7 Case 1:23-cv-01125-IS-KK Document 36-3 F0904 Page 13 of 36 Issue rates by surface DM/chat has the two highest rates of issues across surfaces: 73.1% of the time for fake account contact, and 68.6% of the time for unwanted sexual advances. In the last 7 days, where in Instagram did you see this? Please select all that apply. If a respondent experienced an issue, they were asked where in Instagram it happened. The question allowed for multiple responses, so the rows will add up to more than 100%. Higher numbers are shaded in darker reds, and the highest number per issue/row is in bold. Hashtag/ Feed/ Comment on Explore/ Location Someone's Somewhere I don't DM/Chat Stories my post Search Page Reels Profile else remember fake accounts 73.1% 7.6% 10.5% 4.9% 4.2% 3.6% 14.6% 10.3% 16.0% unwanted advances 68.6% 9.2% 7.4% 9.2% 5.5% 6.0% 16.7% 10.6% 12.9% bully target 60.1% 17.6% 18.5% 12.1% 12.0% 10.2% 20.5% 15.2% 17.7% impersonation 1st 26.0% 23.0% 21.9% 24.0% 21.3% 19.5% 35.4% 27.2% 35.8% A few patterns are clear-first, some surfaces are more likely to have issues occur than others, but no app surfaces are immune to bad experiences. Surface comparisons, however, should be taken with a grain of salt-people spend more time on some surfaces than others, so we'd expect differences just because of that. Second, specific issues happen more often on specific surfaces. When respondents experienced fake account contact in the last 7 days, they said it occurred via DM/chat 73.1% of the time; the next highest is someone's profile, at 14.6%. By contrast, when respondents reported seeing self harm in the last 7 days, it was spread across various surfaces: witnessed in post comments 12.6% of the time, and Feed/Stories 31.9% of the time. An expanded table with 95% confidence intervals can be found here. nudity 23.4% 26.4% 7.9% 37.6% 18.1% 22.7% 37.0% 12.8% 18.6% usability action 20.8% 46.6% 11.1% 14.5% 8.9% 17.0% 16.4% 13.6% 30.6% usability passive 20.7% 49.7% 7.5% 21.4% 7.6% 19.9% 15.6% 12.2% 29.1% acct security misinfo 18.4% 24.0% 11.2% 15.1% 12.5% 12.6% 18.0% 16.2% 55.2% 18.2% 37.3% 6.4% 38.3% 11.5% 17.4% 24.1% 13.3% 21.2% bully witness 17.8% 30.6% 10.1% 24.4% 13.3% 16.7% 40.8% 17.2% 23.2% self harm 14.9% 31.9% 12.6% 25.3% 14.4% 19.1% 29.4% 13.8% 26.9% drugs 14.8% 34.8% 11.7% 22.5% 17.6% 16.4% 26.6% 13.5% 28.3% perceived control 13.7% 37.9% 5.8% 37.8% 12.2% 25.9% 13.0% 9.6% 25.5% data privacy 13.5% 26.3% 5.8% 21.7% 10.3% 11.9% 11.9% 14.3% 46.8% violence 11.3% 34.0% 7.2% 34.5% 16.2% 20.2% 29.7% 11.2% 23.1% transparency hate witness 10.1% 28.4% 7.5% 14.5% 10.4% 11.2% 35.6% 11.5% 34.5% 9.5% 31.0% 9.9% 31.3% 17.5% 20.2% 39.4% 19.6% 21.9% audience limitation 9.3% 44.4% 9.2% 13.0% 10.9% 9.9% 13.0% 7.3% 41.3% negative comparison 8.7% 40.9% 6.4% 36.3% 12.3% 24.7% 34.8% 9.0% 22.4% over enforcement 7.0% 35.7% 6.5% 12.1% 9.6% 11.6% 42.7% 11.2% 29.7% commerciality 6.9% 64.7% 5.0% 20.6% 10.2% 17.1% 8.9% 7.4% 23.4% political posts 6.2% 44.4% 6.6% 34.0% 16.3% 20.0% 23.7% 10.4% 27.8% 12 Case 1:23-cv-01125-IS-KK Document 36-2 Fed/904 Page 16 of 36 Relationship between respondent and antagonist Issues are largely caused by strangers, with negative social comparison (15.5%) and bullying target (14.6%) having the highest rates of known instigators. If respondents experienced an issue, they were then asked, "What's your relationship with the account that posted this?" (This follow-up question wasn't asked for issues that wouldn't make sense, like commerciality or over-enforcement.) The content labeled an issue by the respondent was usually posted by someone they don't know. 93.8% of unwanted sexual advances are from people the respondent doesn't know, the highest percentage of the 12 issues; negative social comparison has the lowest, at 64.9%. Conversely, the highest rates of issues instigated by someone the respondent knows offline were negative comparison (15.5%) and bullying target (14.6%). No other issue is above 10%. The lowest is unwanted sexual advances, with only 2.1% from people the respondent knows offline. I know them offline/ in real life I know them, but only online I don't know them Negative comparison Bullying target Impersonation 15.5% 19.6% 64.9% 14.6% 16.0% 69.4% 9.9% 21.1% 69.0% Drugs 9.7% 12.3% 78.0% Self harm 9.5% 19.2% 71.3% Political posts 8.9% 16.2% 75.0% Bullying witness 6.4% 17.6% 76.0% Violence 5.1% 13.7% 81.2% Hate witness 4.6% 14.3% 81.1% Misinfo 4.5% 9.7% 85.8% Nudity 3.7% 9.1% 87.1% Unwanted sexual advances 2.1% 4.2% 93.8% An expanded table with 95% confidence intervals can be found here. 13 8 Case 1:23-cv-01115-MS-KK Document 36-3904 Page 15 of 36 Relationship with antagonist by creator status Low response rates among creators prevent strong conclusions In the table to the right, responses to the question "What's your relationship with the account that posted this?" are split by creator status (the "I don't know them" response option is excluded for the sake of space). The rates of knowing the antagonist offline is highlighted in blue. not creator experimenting aspiring+ I know them... only online % n % n % n 16.2% 227 15.0% 19 3.4% 1 Bullying target offline/ in real life 15.0% 210 11.9% 15 5.7% 1 only online 17.2% 1479 23.8% 145 20.5% 8 Bullying witness offline/ in real life 6.4% 554 6.0% 37 2.5% 1 Given the very low numbers of creators (especially aspiring+ creators) who answered the known antagonist question, it's not possible to make confident statements about the relationship between creator status and knowing the antagonist. only online 15.7% 250 21.4% 23 38.7% 2 Political posts offline/ in real life 9.0% 142 7.3% 8 13.7% 1 only online 12.0% 38 17.0% 4 0.0% 0 Drugs offline/ in real life 9.5% 30 12.5% 3 0.0% 0 only online 14.0% 1227 19.0% 115 12.1% 5 Hate witness offline/ in real life 4.6% 400 6.1% 37 2.6% 1 I also looked at the relationship between knowing the antagonist* and number of followers/number of stories posted in the last seven days (not official proxies for creator status, but they do correlate with creator status- see the creator segmentation descriptives slide). There aren't any statistically significant correlations between follower count and knowing the antagonist. There are, however, multiple significant correlations between L7 stories production and knowing the antagonist for bullying witness (r = 0.048), hate witness (r = 0.025), misinfo (r = 0.042), self harm (r = 0.12), and negative social comparison (r = 0.046). only online 13.5% 431 16.6% 36 5.2% 1 Violence offline/ in real life 5.1% 163 5.7% 12 0.0% 0 Unwanted only online 4.1% 84 5.0% 6 0.0% 0 sexual advances offline/ in real life 2.1% 42 2.1% 3 0.0% 0 Negative social only online comparision 19.1% 908 27.8% 85 22.2% 4 offline/ in real life 15.3% 727 17.6% 54 20.8% 4 only online 19.3% 107 17.7% 8 23.7% 1 Self harm offline/ in real life 9.5% 53 9.1% 4 15.0% 1 Nudity only online 8.8% 404 14.6% 42 13.7% 3 offline/ in real life 3.7% 171 4.3% 12 9.5% 2 only online 9.7% 786 10.4% 48 8.2% 3 Misinfo offline/ in real life 4.5% 367 4.9% 23 4.5% 1 Impersonation only online 21.4% 26 15.8% 1 0.0% 0 1st offline/ in real life 9.9% 12 13.2% 0 0.0% 0 *for the purposes of the correlation analysis, the known antagonist variable was coded: 1 = I don't know them, 2 only online, and 3 = offline. An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. Case 1:23-cv-01125-IS-KK Document 36-3 Fledge of 36 Actions taken as a result of experiencing an issue Blocking or muting the account is the most frequent action taken as a result of an issue experience, with closing Instagram as the second most frequent. If a respondent reported experiencing an issue in the last 7 days, they were asked if they took any actions as a result. The table to the right shows the percentage of people who reported taking each action, with larger percentages shaded in darker reds. Actions (columns) are arranged from least to most frequently used. Changing privacy settings is the least-used action across issues, with one outlier, first- person impersonation (29%). Talked to a parent or close friend was the second least- used action. Blocking or muting the account was the most frequent action, followed by closing Instagram. Among issues, impersonation elicited the most actions overall, followed by bullying target and bullying witness. Did you take any of the following actions as a result of this experience? Select all that apply. Bullying target Bullying witness Drugs Changed my privacy settings 22.9% 12.9% Unfollowed Reported the account the account Talked to a parent or close friend about it Deleted the post or comment Reported the post, Story, or Reel Closed the Blocked or Instagram muted the app account 12.0% 12.0% 28.5% 8.1% 12.5% 10.3% 8.2% Fake account 7.4% 3.8% 20.3% 18.3% 9.8% 12.0% 13.2% 6.2% Hate witness 5.3% 14.4% Impersonation 1st 29.0% 17.8% 18.8% 8.3% 21.0% 21.5% Misinfo 5.8% 8.7% 9.5% 16.3% Negative social comparison 7.4% 12.0% 6.7% 8.8% Nudity 8.6% 7.7% 11.9% 20.8% 37.6% 25.7% 62.9% 32.7% 39.3% 36.9% 37.6% 30.4% 27.3% 32.9% 36.0% 17.7% 28.7% 14.5% 68.7% 31.5% 38.1% 39.4% 32.1% 23.7% 44.9% 24.0% 39.6% 32.4% 30.6% 35.5% 35.5% 29.2% 15.0% 54.8% 24.4% 29.3% 36.1% 35.6% 42.0% Political posts 6.6% 12.0% 9.1% 7.9% 31.0% 11.9% 45.9% 26.7% Self harm 10.4% 14.9% 10.6% 16.2% 28.0% 29.8% 41.9% 32.3% Unwanted sexual advances 8.6% 4.8% 21.8% 7.6% 19.3% 30.9% 17.6% 66.5% Violence 6.3% 13.0% 9.7% 22.0% 27.1% 34.0% 36.6% 31.3% An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. 14 15 9 Case 1:23-0-01115-MIS-KK Document 26-3 Fed/904 Page 17 of 36 Perceived support from Instagram Respondents felt the least supported by Instagram when they were the target of bullying, had difficulty posting, or felt Instagram took down content when it shouldn't. If a respondent reported experiencing an issue in the last 7 days, they were asked if they took any actions as a result. The table to the right shows the percentage of people who reported taking each action, with larger percentages shaded in darker reds. Actions (columns) are arranged from least to most frequently used. Changing privacy settings is the least-used action across issues, with one outlier, first-person impersonation (29%). Talked to a parent or close friend was the second least-used action. Blocking or muting the account was the most frequent action, followed by closing Instagram. Among issues, impersonation elicited the most actions overall, followed by bullying target and bullying witness. Thinking about this experience, did you feel supported by Instagram? Completely/ mostly supported Supported Somewhat Not very/ not at Does not apply all supported to my situation Bullying target Usability action 16.5% 12.3% 49.2% 22.0% 15.5% 13.1% 45.9% 25.6% Over enforcement 12.5% 14.2% 42.9% 30.4% Impersonation 27.6% 14.6% 41.4% 16.5% Perceived controll 12.3% 14.6% 41.1% 32.0% Account security 25.6% 16.3% 40.0% 18.0% Hate witness 13.8% 15.6% 39.5% 31.2% Nudity 18.6% 16.2% 38.9% 26.3% Violence 19.8% 14.0% 38.9% 27.3% Self harm 19.5% 12.4% 38.0% 30.1% Audience limitation 17.4% 15.8% 37.9% 28.8% Transparency 16.6% 14.7% 37.6% 31.0% Drugs 21.5% 13.1% 37.0% 28.4% Bullying witness 14.7% 15.0% 36.9% 33.4% Usability passive 16.0% 14.8% 36.6% 32.6% Data privacy 17.2% 17.0% 35.0% 30.8% Misinfo 15.1% 14.1% 34.5% 36.4% Negative social comparison 14.7% 13.7% 34.1% 37.6% Unwanted sexual advances 23.0% 15.4% 33.3% 28.3% Commerciality 15.2% 14.2% 32.9% 37.7% Political posts 18.2% 15.1% 29.4% 37.4% Fake account 20.8% 15.5% 27.2% 36.5% An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. 16 Case 1:23-cv-01125-IS-KK Document 26-3 F0904 Page 19 of 36 Impact of issue experience on creation behavior All issues cause some reduction in self- reported creation behavior, with impersonation hindering creation the most. If a respondent experienced an issue, they were asked if it stopped or discouraged them from posting on Instagram. The table to the right shows the percentage of respondents selecting each of response options; issues are sorted by the percentage of respondents who selected 'yes' or 'somewhat.' First-person impersonation, usability action, and account security are the top three, which makes sense; they all involve being physically unable to access or use your account. Negative comparison is #4, followed by over enforcement and audience limitation. Contact by a fake account and unwanted advances are the issues that reduce creation the least (it's worth noting, however, that even the issue with the least impact on creation, fake account contact, resulted in 22.6% of respondents choosing 'yes' or 'somewhat.') Did this experience stop or discourage you from posting on Instagram? Yes Somewhat No impersonation 1st 35.9% 31.0% 33.1% usability action 30.2% 28.1% 41.7% acct security 31.3% 25.4% 43.4% negative comparison 27.5% 28.5% 44.0% over enforcement 23.7% 28.6% 47.7% audience limitation 22.2% 29.9% 47.9% self harm 28.0% 23.8% 48.2% bully target 30.1% 21.6% 48.3% drugs 32.1% 18.7% 49.2% transparency 23.0% 27.7% 49.3% data privacy 17.4% 30.5% 52.0% hate witness 20.8% 25.5% 53.7% bully witness 20.0% 25.8% 54.2% nudity 22.5% 23.0% 54.4% violence 22.6% 22.2% 55.2% perceived control 19.6% 23.8% 56.5% political posts 16.3% 24.1% 59.6% usability passive 14.9% 20.9% 64.2% misinfo 15.2% 20.1% 64.7% commerciality 11.8% 21.0% 67.2% unwanted advances 10.1% 18.4% 71.6% fake acct 1st 7.9% 14.7% 77.4% An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. 17 Case 1:23-cv-01-135-MRS-KK Dcument 36-3 Find 59904 Page 19 of 36 Results by age and gender 10 Case 1:23-cv-01125-IS-KK Document 26-3 F004 Page 20 of 36 Respondents experiencing one or more issues A little over half of respondents (51.6%) experienced at least one issue in the past 7 days Each respondent was asked whether they've experienced any of five issues, randomly selected out of a set of 22 issues. 51.6% of respondents said they've experienced at least one issue. Within age groups, the percentage is highest among those age 16-17 (57.3%), followed by 18-21 (55.7%), and 13- 15 (54.1%). The group with the lowest percentage of experiencing one or more issue is age 45+, at 31.2%. (Note: Age was the last question asked, so we only have age data for the 67.5% of respondents who completed the survey.) % of each age None 1 or more group experiencing (out of 5) one or more issues 13-15 5,283 6,215 54.1% 16-17 7,371 9,888 57.3% 18-21 16,033 21,164 56.9% 22-26 12,520 15,713 55.7% 27-34 13,019 13,426 50.8% 35-44 9,978 7,689 43.5% 45 or older 7,877 3,564 31.2% Prefer not to say 5,647 5,229 48.1% Total 77,727 82,888 51.6% 19 11 Case 1:23-cv-01115-MS-KK Document 26-3 004 Page 21 of 36 Issues by most and least impacted age groups The 13-15 age group has the highest rates for 8/22 issues, while the 45+ group has the lowest rates of 21/22 issues The table to the right shows the percentages of respondents who selected "Yes, during the last 7 days" for each of the issues, split by self-reported age. The green cells represent the lowest incidence for that issue across all age groups, and the red cells represent the highest incidence. Numbers that share a numeric subscript are not statistically significantly different from each other at p < 0.05. The full breakdown by all age groups is on the next slide. The 13-15 age group has the most red cells (8)--that is, they have the highest rates of issue experience in 8 of the 22 issues, more than any other age group. By contrast, the oldest age group (45+) has the most green cells (21)-they have the lowest rates of issue experience in 10 of the 22 cells. commerciality misinfo Overall 13-15 45+ 48.2% 37.7%a 39.6%a,f 30.3% 24.4%a 16.1%e bully witness audience limitation 28.3% 27.2%a 10.6%e 26.8% 28.2%a,b 15.9%e usability passive 25.5% 30.1%a 10.1%e hate witness 25.3% 26.0%a 9.0%e data privacy 24.4% 17.9%a 14.3%e perceived control 23.9% 18.4%a fake acct 1st 21.8% 14.2%d 15.8%a 13.2%e negative comparison 19.2% 21.4%a 6.8%e transparency 17.5% 14.9%a 8.4%e political posts 17.0% 14.3%a,d 8.7%e nudity 16.3% 19.2%a 6.2%e over enforcement 14.8% 14.1%a.c 5.9%e violence 12.8% 12.8%a.b 5.0%d unwanted advances 11.9% 13.0%a 6.9%d usability action 10.7% 11.2%a,e 6.6%d bully target 8.1% 10.8%a 3.4%e self harm 6.7% 8.4%a 1.9%d acct security 3.9% 5.2%a 1.3%d drugs 3.9% 3.7%a,b 1.7%c impersonation 1st 3.7% 5.5%a 0.3%b An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. Case 1:23-0-01115-MIS-KK Document 26-3 led 1/09/04 Page 22 of 36 Issues by all age groups Younger people report higher rates of every issue, with some issues felt more universally than others In general, the older the respondent, the less likely they are to report experiencing any of the 22 issues measured. All red cells (the age group with the highest rate of experiencing an issue) are within the four youngest age groups. The gap between the lowest and highest issue rates vary by issue. Bullying witness, for instance, has the widest delta: 31.1% of the 22- 26 age group report experiencing it, compared to only 10.6% of the 45+ group, a delta of 20.5 percentage points. Other large deltas include usability passive (delta = 20 points), hate witness (19.5), and misinfo (17.5). By contrast, certain issues are experienced at similar rates regardless of age. For example, drug sales (delta = 2.1), account security (3.9), and usability action (4.6). commerciality misinfo bully witness Delta Column N % Column N% Column N% Column N% Column N% Column N% Column N% Highest-lowest Overall % 13-15 16-17 18-21 22-26 27-34 35-44 45+ 48.2% 37.7%a 42.5%b.f.g 47.6%c 51.2%d 50.5%d 44.8%b.e 39.6%af 13.50% 30.3% 24.4%a 29.2%b 30.0%b.d 33.6%c 31.2%d 24.4%a 16.1%e 17.50% 28.3% 27.2%a 29.4%b 29.9%b.c 31.1%c 27.4%a 19.8%d 10.6%e 20.50% audience limitation 26.8% 28.2%ab 29.3%a 28.1%a 26.7%b 24.9%c 20.3%d 15.9%e 13.40% usability passive 25.5% 30.1%a 30.0%a 29.5%a 25.9%b 21.6%c 17.1%d 10.1%e 20.00% hate witness 25.3% 26.0%a 28.5%b 27.9%b 27.9%b 22.5%c 15.7%d 9.0%e 19.50% data privacy perceived controll 24.4% 17.9%a 21.4%b 23.0%c 25.9%d 24.8%d.f 20.2%b 14.3%e 11.60% 23.9% 18.4%a 20.0%8 24.8%b 26.7%c 24.7%b.c 20.9%a 14.2%d 12.50% fake acct 1st 21.8% 15.8% 21.2%b 24.8%c 23.4%c.d 22.9%b,d 17.4%a 13.2%e 11.60% negative comparison 19.2% 21.4%a 19.5%b 20.1%ab 19.4%b 17.5%c 13.4%d 6.8%e 14.60% transparency 17.5% 14.9%a 19.1%bf 19.0%b 17.1%c 15.1%a 12.0%d 8.4%e 10.70% political posts nudity 17.0% 14.3%ad 16.3%a,b 17.3%b 18.0%b.c 15.2%af 12.4%d 8.7%e 9.30% 16.3% 19.2%a 18.4%8 18.2%a 16.7%b 13.6%c 11.3%d 6.2%e 13.00% over enforcement 14.8% 14.1%a.c 16.8%b 16.3%b 14.8%a,f 12.9%c 9.1%d 5.9%e 10.90% violence 12.8% 12.8%ab 14.3%a 13.2%a 13.1%a 11.5%b 8.2%c 5.0%d 9.30% unwanted advances 11.9% 13.0%a 14.1%a 14.2%a 11.0%b 8.0%c 7.7%c,d 6.9%d 7.30% usability action 10.7% 11.2%8,0 11.1%a.e 11.1%a 10.3%a.b 9.6%b 8.5%c 6.6%d 4.60% bully target 8.1% 10.8%a 9.7%a 8.1%b 7.1%b.c 6.5%c 4.9%d 3.4%e 7.40% self harm 6.7% 8.4%a 7.2%a,b 7.5%a 5.8%b 3.5%c 2.5%c,d 1.9%d 6.50% acct security 3.9% 5.2%a 3.2%b.c 4.2%a.b 3.2%c 2.1%d 1.6%d 1.3%d 3.90% drugs 3.9% 3.7%a.b 3.5%a.b 3.8%a 2.7%a,b,c 3.6%a,b 2.3%b.c 1.7%c 2.10% impersonation 1st 3.7% 5.5%a 3.5%a 5.0%a 3.1%a 1.2%b 0.7%b 0.3%b 5.20% An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. 21 20 12 Case 1:23-cv-01115-MIS-KK Document 36-3904 Page 23 of 36 Issue rates by age group and gender* Males and females experience issues at significantly different rates, and those patterns remain consistent across age groups. Pairs of green cells within each age group represent statistically significant comparisons where females experienced the issues at higher rates than males. For example, in the 13-15 age group, 27.4% of females experienced negative comparison in the last 7 days, compared to only 14.6% of males. Pairs of yellow cells within each age group represent statistically significant comparisons where males experienced issues at higher rates than females. For example, 14.4% of males in the 13-15 age group reported being the target of bullying in the last 7 days, compared to 8.6% of females. Interestingly, when an issue is experienced differently by males and females, that difference tends to hold across age groups. The only exception is data privacy concerns, where males report higher rates in the 13-15 and 16-17 age groups, but females report higher rates from age 27 and up. 13-15 16-17 18-21 22-26 27-34 35-44 M F M F M F M 45 or older M F M F F M F 5.6% 4.2% 3.3% 2.9% 3.8% 3.6% 3.2% 3.4% 1.6% 2.6% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.3%a 26.0% 31.0%b 26.7% 33.9%b 27.3% 31.0% 24.9% 30.2% 24.7% 25.1% 22.1% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5%b 14.4% 8.6%b 9.8% 9.6% 8.7% 7.9% 7.5% 6.0% 8.1% 5.0%b 6.7% 3.6%b 4.7% 2.4%b 27.7% 27.8% 28.1% 30.4% 28.2% 32.1% 29.0% 32.4% 25.4%a 28.7%b 18.8% 21.8% 11.1% 11.4%a 37.2% 39.4% 41.2% 42.4% 47.7% 45.4% 51.0% 50.7% 51.7% 49.2% 48.3% 42.8% 40.0% 39.9%a 16.4% 20.6%b 19.2% 22.1%b 22.9% 22.7% 26.4% 25.0% 27.3% 22.8% 23.0% 19.4% 16.3%a 12.1%b 3.1% 4.4% 4.1% 2.7% 4.9% 3.5% 2.3% 2.4% 5.6% 2.1% 1.8% 0.9% 1.5% 1.7%a 20.1% 14.7%b 23.9% 19.2%b 25.5% 22.4% 23.7% 23.8% 23.3% 22.6% 23.6% 14.2%b 15.6% 12.6%a 23.7% 27.8% 25.9% 29.4%b 26.1% 28.7% 25.9% 28.6%b 21.7% 23.0% 15.9% 16.2% 9.4%a 9.4%a 4.3% 1.2% 2.9% 4.4% 5.2% 3.6% 4.0% 2.9% 0.4% 1.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5%8 28.8% 22.3%b 33.2% 26.1%b 32.6% 28.3% 36.7% 30.5% 35.8% 27.3%b 28.9% 22.7% 17.8% 16.0%a negative comparison 14.6% 27.4% 12.8% 25.2%b 14.9% 24.3% 15.0% 22.5%b 13.8% 19.2%b 12.1%8 14.4%b 6.5% nudity acct security audience limitation bully target bully witness commerciality data privacy drugs fake acct 1st hate witness impersonation 1st misinfo 6.3%a over enforcement perceived control political posts self harm transparency unwanted advances usability action usability passive violence 8.2% 9.5% 6.3% 6.1% 7.5% 19.0% 13.5%b 21.2% 19.0% 20.8% 21.4%b 29.7% 15.3%b 20.4% 7.2% 6.7% 20.7% 17.7% 20.0% 17.7% 17.8% 16.7% 17.4% 16.1% 13.4% 12.9% 11.3% 10.7% 6.5% 16.3% 15.2% 17.9% 14.5%b 17.7% 14.9% 14.0% 15.1% 13.2% 11.5% 11.0% 8.4% 9.3% 3.7%b 22.2% 19.7% 21.0% 19.3% 24.9% 19.1% 13.8% 17.0% 14.6% 20.6% 6.3%8 17.5%b 18.1% 12.6%b 13.1% 12.1% 9.5% 24.2%b 24.8% 23.7% 21.0% 20.1% 16.3% 15.0% 16.1%b 17.9% 14.2%b 14.4%8 10.3%b 11.3% 9.2%8 5.6% 4.6%8 2.9% 4.1% 1.4% 2.0% 1.0%a 16.3%b 17.1% 14.2%b 15.3% 10.7%b 11.2% 7.3%b 14.4%a 11.6%b 17.1% 12.2%b 15.8% 9.1%b 10.6% 6.4% 9.6%a 6.5% 11.0% 4.2%b 8.6% 12.6%b 10.2% 11.0% 9.5% 11.5%b 8.9% 10.1% 8.1% 9.6% 7.5%a 6.4%a 24.9% 34.5%b 29.1% 31.5% 27.5% 31.6%b 23.7% 28.0%b 20.4%a 23.2%b 16.2% 17.8% 9.8% 10.5%a 14.1% 11.5% 14.4%a 13.9% 12.2% 12.8% 12.9% 11.7% 10.9% 12.0% 8.1% 8.1% 6.2% 4.5%a "Gender is measured with log data. 37.3% of the sample was labeled male, 35.1% female, 27.2% unknown, and 0.5% custom. Unknown and custom were excluded from this analysis An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. Case 1:23-0-01115-MIS-KK Document 26-3ed904 Page 24 of 36 Bullying and known antagonists, by gender Females respondents are more likely than males to know the antagonist offline when the target of bullying, but less likely to know the antagonist offline when witnessing bullying. The percentage of females responding that they know the antagonist offline/ in real life for bullying target is 17.4%, versus 11.8% for males. This difference is statistically significant, measured via a 2x2 chi square test (the 'I know them, but only online' and 'I don't know them' response options were combined for this analysis). Known antagonist by gender male female n 95% Lower Cl 95% Upper Cl n Offline Online DK Offline Online DK 11.8% 16.6% 71.6% 17.4% 13.0% 69.5% 9.3% 13.7% 67.8% 14.3% 10.4% 65.5% 14.5% 19.7% 75.1% 20.8% 16.1% 73.4% 69 97 420 92 69 368 7.2% 15.5% 77.3% 5.5% 21.1% 73.4% 6.3% 14.2% 75.7% 4.8% 19.8% 72.0% 8.2% 16.9% 78.7% 6.3% 22.3% 74.8% 211 455 2266 219 836 2916 Bullying target Row % 95% Lower CI 95% Upper CI Interestingly, the pattern is reversed for bullying witness. The percentage of females responding that they know the antagonist offline/ in real life for bullying witness is 5.5%, versus 7.2% for males. This difference is also statistically significant. Bullying witness Row % These two patterns are particularly pronounced in the 13-15 age group (bottom table), although the pattern is found in most age groups. Because of small sample sizes when cutting by age, though, separate statistical tests were not run for those subsets. male Bullying target Row % 95% Lower CI 95% Upper CI n Bullying witness Row % 9 13 31 8.4% 20.1% 71.5% 95% Lower Cl 4.3% 13.4% 62.9% 95% Upper CI 14.1% 27.4% 78.8% n 10 24 Known antagonist by gender, ages 13-15 only female Offline Online DK Offline Online DK 17.3% 24.6% 58.1% 29.5% 23.3% 47.2% 8.7% 14.5% 45.1% 17.4% 12.6% 33.5% 28.7% 37.2% 71.0% 42.2% 35.5% 60.8% 23 14 11 5.4% 17.3% 77.3% 3.0% 13.0% 71.9% 8.5% 22.4% 82.3% 13 43 192 87 22 23 Case 1:23-cv-01125-S-KK Document 36-2 F004 Page 25 of 36 13 Results by creator segmentation Case 1:23-cv-01125-IS-KK Document 26-3 F004 Page 26 of 36 Creator segmentation 5.41% of survey respondents are classified as creators, based on ig_creator_segment. Because there are too few emerging (n=51) and established (n=9) respondents in the dataset to analyze those categories separately, they were combined with aspiring (n=698) respondents into an 'aspiring+' group for further analyses. The former pre-experimenting category was added to the not creator category. IG creator segment Not creator Experimenting Aspiring Emerging Established feed media 7d Mean 1 2 4 8 6 Median 0 0 1 3 4 Π 225,143 12,128 698 51 9 story_media_7d Mean 7 19 35 51 78 Median 1 11 21 29 60 n 225,143 12,128 698 51 9 reels media 7d Mean 0 0 1 1 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 n 225,143 12,128 698 51 9 followers Mean Median 514 2,110 22,843 266,696 1,807,007 182 1,512 15,683 178,042 1,556,500 Π 225,143 12,128 698 51 9 25 14 Case 1:23-cv-0111S-MS-KK Document 36-3 Fed/09/04 Page 27 of 36 Issues by creator segmentation Most issues are experienced more often by larger creators, but the gap varies by issue In this table, issues are ranked by the issue rates of the aspiring+ creator group (a combination of the aspiring, emerging, and established segments). Red/green cells are the highest/lowest value in each row. 12 of the 22 issues are experienced most often by the aspiring+ group, while nearly all (21 of 22) issues are experienced most often by either the large or experimenting groups. By contrast, 21 of 22 issues are experienced the least often by respondents without a creator status. Similar to age, not all issues have large gaps in experience rates across creator status. Not surprisingly, audience limitation ("Have you felt that not enough people see the things you share on Instagram?") is both the most frequent issue for aspiring+ creators, as well as the issue with the largest gap: 53.5% of aspiring+ creators experienced this issue in the past 7 days, compared to only 25.7% of non-creators, a delta of 27.8 percentage points. Bullying target has the second highest delta (18.3), followed by fake account (15.9). By contrast, issues such as drugs (1.2), account security (1.4), data privacy (1.7), and violence (2.0) are experienced similarly regardless of creator status. Issue None Experimenting Aspiring+ Delta Column N% Column N% Column N% High-low audience limitation 25.7%c 45.5%b 53.5%a 27.8% bully witness 28.0%b 34.0%a 37.7%a 9.7% misinfo 30.2%b 31.9%a 37.5%a 6.1% fake acct 1st 21.4%b 29.2%a 37.3%a 15.9% commerciality 48.2%b 48.0%a.b 36.3%a 11.9% usability passive 25.0%b 33.6%a 32.1%a 8.6% hate witness 25.1%b 30.0%a 28.4%a.b 4.9% bully target 7.8%c 12.1%b 26.1%a 18.3% data privacy 24.4%a 24.7%a 26.1%a 1.7% perceived control 23.7%b 26.4%a 24.7%ab 2.7% nudity 16.2%a 17.4%a 21.3%a 5.1% political posts 16.8%b 21.1%a 20.4%a.b 4.3% unwanted advances 11.7%b 15.2%a 19.2%a 7.5% negative comparison 19.0%b 21.9%a 17.9%a,b 4.0% transparency 17.3%b 20.4%a 16.6%a.b 3.8% usability action 10.4%b 15.6%a 16.2%a 5.8% over enforcement 14.6%b 16.8%a 15.3%a,b 2.2% violence 12.7%b 14.7%a 14.7%ab 2.0% impersonation 1st 3.7%b 3.2%b 14.7%a 11.5% self harm 6.6%b 8.9%a 12.1%ab 5.5% drugs 3.9%a 5.1%a 4.0%a 1.2% acct security 3.8%b 5.2%a 3.8%ab 1.4% *Aspiring, emerging, and established creator segments combined **Cells in each row not sharing a subscript are statistically significant from each other, p < 0.05 26 An expanded table with confidence intervals can be found here. Came 1:23-0-01-135-MS-HX Decent 36-39954 Page 20 of 3 15