pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07732 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

Recognition: no theorem link

Twitch Third-Party Developers' Support Seeking and Provision Practices on Discord

Chun Yu, He Zhang, Jie Cai, John M. Carroll, Yueyan Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY
keywords third-party developerssupport practicesplatform laborDiscord communityTwitchinformal supportplatform ecologymixed methods
0
0 comments X

The pith

Twitch third-party developers face added platform labor from switching between Discord support and official channels.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper investigates how third-party developers for Twitch seek and give support in a Discord community when official responses are slow. It uses topic modeling and qualitative review to show that their efforts around social, technical, and policy issues depend on Twitch, creating a form of platform labor. Switching between Discord and Twitch for help further increases this workload. Flexible roles in the community allow it to grow but still need ways to link informal discussions to formal platform support. Readers would care because these findings highlight hidden costs for developers building on major platforms and point to better ways of connecting community and official help.

Core claim

Third-party developers often turn to online communities for support when they cannot get immediate responses from the platform. On Twitch, this has led to a support community on Discord. The study finds that support-seeking practices around social, technical, and policy matters are highly dependent on Twitch, and this dependence acts as a form of platform labor. Developers need to switch between Discord and Twitch regarding seeking and provision, which exacerbates their platform labor. Their flexible role practices reflect the community's flourishing on Discord but require roles to bridge the two platforms and transfer informal support seeking to possible formal support from Twitch.

What carries the argument

The mechanism of support seeking and provision that requires bridging informal Discord communities with formal Twitch channels, manifesting as platform labor.

If this is right

  • Managing support seeking and provision between formal Twitch channels and informal Discord spaces improves third-party developer development.
  • Flexible roles in the Discord community allow it to flourish but still require bridging mechanisms to move informal requests toward formal Twitch support.
  • Understanding these switching practices advances community support practice and platform ecology work.
  • Dependence on the platform for support turns community help into a recurring form of labor for developers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar switching burdens and labor costs likely appear for third-party developers on other live-streaming or content platforms that rely on separate community forums.
  • Designers could create tools that automatically route relevant Discord discussions into official support systems to cut down on manual transfers.
  • If these patterns hold, platform operators might reduce developer burnout by integrating community insights more directly into their formal response processes.
  • A follow-up study tracking actual time developers spend on cross-platform coordination would quantify the scale of this added labor.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis of Discord discussions through topic modeling and qualitative review fully and representatively captures third-party developers' support practices without self-selection bias or overlooked formal channels.

What would settle it

Finding that most third-party developers handle support directly via Twitch's official tools or private channels without relying on Discord would disprove the high dependence and resulting platform labor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07732 by Chun Yu, He Zhang, Jie Cai, John M. Carroll, Yueyan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A screenshot of the TwitchDev server on Discord. (A) the server icon and name; (B) the lobby channel as the main channel for discussion; (C) a list of 214 active developers online; (D) a user with many different tagged roles verified by the server administrators, such as developer and extension developer. understanding of their inner workings [117]. Online support provides empirical experiences from peers,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Third-party developers (TPDs) often turn to online communities for support when they can't get immediate responses from the platform. Twitch, as a leading live streaming platform, attracted many TPDs and formed an online support community on Discord. This study explores TPDs' support practices via mixed method (a topic modeling to identify topics related to support seeking and provision first and a follow-up in-depth qualitative analysis with these topics) and found that: (1) TPDs' support-seeking practices around social, technical, and policy matters are highly dependent on Twitch, and this dependence acts as a form of platform labor; (2) TPDs need to switch between Discord and Twitch regarding seeking and provision, exacerbating TPDs' platform labor; (3) TPDs' flexible role practices reflect the community's flourishing on Discord but require roles to bridge the two platforms and transfer informal support seeking to possible formal support from Twitch. We propose implications for effectively managing support seeking and provision between formal and informal spaces to improve the development of TPDs. We also contribute to community support practice and to platform ecology work in CSCW.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper examines third-party developers' (TPDs) support-seeking and provision practices in the Twitch ecosystem via a Discord-based online community. Using a mixed-methods design (topic modeling to surface support-related topics followed by qualitative analysis), it reports three findings: (1) TPD support practices around social, technical, and policy issues are highly Twitch-dependent and constitute a form of platform labor; (2) the necessity of switching between Discord and Twitch for seeking and providing support exacerbates this labor; and (3) flexible role practices signal community flourishing on Discord yet require bridging roles to channel informal support toward formal Twitch channels. The work draws implications for managing support across formal and informal spaces and contributes to CSCW research on platform labor and community support practices.

Significance. If the empirical claims are adequately supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to CSCW and HCI work on platform labor and the interplay between formal platform infrastructures and informal developer communities. It extends existing literature by documenting how dependence on a live-streaming platform shapes support practices and by highlighting the labor costs of cross-platform switching. The mixed-methods framing could serve as a template for studying similar support ecosystems, provided the data and analytic steps are described with sufficient transparency.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods description: the mixed-methods approach is introduced but supplies no information on data sources (specific Discord servers or channels), corpus size, collection period, number of messages or participants, topic-modeling parameters, or validation procedures for the qualitative coding. Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the three numbered findings are grounded in representative evidence rather than self-selected Discord activity.
  2. [Findings and Discussion] Findings and Discussion: the central claims that support-seeking is 'highly dependent on Twitch' and that platform switching 'exacerbates platform labor' rest exclusively on Discord discussion data. No triangulation with Twitch support tickets, official documentation, or non-public channels is reported, leaving open the possibility that the observed dependence and bridging-role requirements are artifacts of the Discord-only sample rather than general TPD practices.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains minor grammatical issues (e.g., 'a topic modeling' should read 'topic modeling' or 'a topic-modeling step'). A short limitations paragraph addressing potential self-selection in the Discord corpus would improve clarity even if the main methodological gaps are addressed elsewhere.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for improving the transparency and scope of our work. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods description: the mixed-methods approach is introduced but supplies no information on data sources (specific Discord servers or channels), corpus size, collection period, number of messages or participants, topic-modeling parameters, or validation procedures for the qualitative coding. Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the three numbered findings are grounded in representative evidence rather than self-selected Discord activity.

    Authors: We agree that these details are essential for assessing the grounding and representativeness of the findings. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section (and update the abstract if space permits) to specify the Discord servers and channels sampled, the data collection period, the corpus size including number of messages and participants, the topic modeling parameters (e.g., number of topics, preprocessing), and the qualitative validation procedures (e.g., coding process and any reliability checks). This will provide the necessary transparency. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings and Discussion] Findings and Discussion: the central claims that support-seeking is 'highly dependent on Twitch' and that platform switching 'exacerbates platform labor' rest exclusively on Discord discussion data. No triangulation with Twitch support tickets, official documentation, or non-public channels is reported, leaving open the possibility that the observed dependence and bridging-role requirements are artifacts of the Discord-only sample rather than general TPD practices.

    Authors: Our study is scoped to the informal support practices observed in the Twitch TPD Discord community, and the claims are directly supported by the patterns in that data. We will revise the Discussion and Limitations sections to explicitly state the boundaries of the Discord-only sample, clarify that the findings describe practices within this ecosystem rather than claiming universality across all TPD support channels, and note that triangulation with official Twitch data would be valuable for future work. We do not have access to non-public Twitch support tickets, so we cannot add such triangulation here, but the revisions will prevent overgeneralization. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical qualitative study

full rationale

This paper reports a mixed-methods empirical investigation consisting of topic modeling on Discord discussion data followed by qualitative coding and interpretation. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or equations appear in the described methods or claims. The central findings—that TPD support practices are Twitch-dependent and constitute platform labor—are interpretive conclusions drawn from observed community data rather than any self-referential construction, self-citation chain, or renaming of inputs. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks of qualitative CSCW research and contains no load-bearing steps that reduce to their own definitions or prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on standard qualitative HCI assumptions about the validity of topic modeling for surfacing themes and the interpretive power of subsequent qualitative coding to reveal labor practices; no new entities or fitted numerical parameters are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Topic modeling applied to Discord messages can reliably surface support-seeking and support-provision topics.
    Used as the first analytical step before qualitative follow-up.
  • domain assumption Qualitative reading of the surfaced topics can accurately characterize platform dependence and labor.
    Central to translating computational output into the three numbered claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5506 in / 1315 out tokens · 47318 ms · 2026-05-10T18:00:14.087090+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Comparative Analysis of Human vs. AI-powered Support in VRChat Communities on Discord: User Engagement, Response Dynamics and Interaction Patterns

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Comparative study of VRChat Discord finds distinct engagement, response dynamics, and attitudes in human versus AI support channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 107 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cecchinato, and John Rooksby

    Juan Carlos Alvarez De La Vega, Marta E. Cecchinato, and John Rooksby. 2022. Design Opportunities for Freelancing Platforms: Online Freelancers’ Views on a Worker-Centred Design Fiction. In2022 Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. ACM, Durham NH USA, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533406.3533410

    work page doi:10.1145/3533406.3533410 2022

  2. [2]

    Ira Anjali Anwar, Joyojeet Pal, and Julie Hui. 2021. Watched, but Moving: Platformization of Beauty Work and Its Gendered Mechanisms of Control.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW3 (Jan. 2021), 250:1–250:20. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3432949

    work page doi:10.1145/3432949 2021

  3. [3]

    How" and

    Ofer Arazy, Hila Liifshitz-Assaf, Oded Nov, Johannes Daxenberger, Martina Balestra, and Coye Cheshire. 2017. On the "How" and "Why" of Emergent Role Behaviors in Wikipedia. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 2039–2051. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998317

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998317 2017

  4. [4]

    Kristen Barta, Katelyn Wolberg, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2023. Similar Others, Social Comparison, and Social Support in Online Support Groups.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (Sept. 2023), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610086

    work page doi:10.1145/3610086 2023

  5. [5]

    David M. Blei. 2012. Probabilistic Topic Models.Commun. ACM55, 4 (apr 2012), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2133806.2133826

    work page arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation.Journal of machine Learning research3, Jan (2003), 993–1022

    2003

  7. [7]

    Boudreau

    Kevin J. Boudreau. 2012. Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Numbers of Software App Developers and Patterns of Innovation.Organization Science23, 5 (Oct. 2012), 1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0678

    work page doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0678 2012

  8. [8]

    Boudreau and Karim R

    Kevin J. Boudreau and Karim R. Lakhani. 2009. How to Manage Outside Innovation.MIT Sloan Management Review (July 2009). https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-manage-outside-innovation/

    2009

  9. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    work page doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  10. [10]

    Anders Bruun, Niels van Berkel, Dimitrios Raptis, and Effie L-C Law. 2025. Coordination Mechanisms in AI De- velopment: Practitioner Experiences on Integrating UX Activities. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/370659...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713200 2025

  11. [11]

    Beril Bulat, Hannah Wang, Stephen Fujimoto, and Seth Frey. 2024. The psychology of volunteer moderators: Tradeoffs between participation, belonging, and norms in online community governance.New Media & Society(July 2024), 14614448241259028. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241259028

    work page doi:10.1177/14614448241259028 2024

  12. [12]

    Jie Cai, Sagnik Chowdhury, Hongyang Zhou, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2023. Hate Raids on Twitch: Understanding Real-Time Human-Bot Coordinated Attacks in Live Streaming Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 342:1–342:28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610191

    work page doi:10.1145/3610191 2023

  13. [13]

    Jie Cai, Ya-Fang Lin, He Zhang, and John M. Carroll. 2024. Third-Party Developers and Tool Development For Community Management on Live Streaming Platform Twitch. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642787 arXiv:2401.11317 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642787 2024

  14. [14]

    Jie Cai and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2019. Categorizing Live Streaming Moderation Tools: An Analysis of Twitch. International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies (IJICST)9, 2 (July 2019), 36–50. https: //doi.org/10.4018/IJICST.2019070103 ISBN: 9782019070106

    work page doi:10.4018/ijicst.2019070103 2019

  15. [15]

    Jie Cai and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2022. Coordination and Collaboration: How do Volunteer Moderators Work as a Team in Live Streaming Communities?. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517628

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517628 2022

  16. [16]

    Jie Cai and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2023. Understanding Moderators’ Conflict and Conflict Management Strategies with Streamers in Live Streaming Communities. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580982

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580982 2023

  17. [17]

    Mahasweta Chakraborti, Sailendra Akash Bonagiri, Santiago Virgüez-Ruiz, and Seth Frey. 2024. NLP4Gov: A Comprehensive Library for Computational Policy Analysis. InExtended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650810

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650810 2024

  18. [18]

    Stevie Chancellor, Andrea Hu, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2018. Norms matter: Contrasting social support around behavior change in online weight loss communities.Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 2018-April (April 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174240 ISBN: 9781450356206

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174240 2018

  19. [19]

    Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2005. Socialization in an Open Source Software Community: A Socio-Technical Analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)14, 4 (Aug. 2005), 323–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9000-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-005-9000-1 2005

  20. [20]

    Sarper Durmuş. 2024. Twitch Developers as a ‘company-led community’. InCollaboration in Media Studies. Routledge. Num Pages: 13

    2024

  21. [21]

    Qiang Fan, Yue Yu, Tao Wang, Gang Yin, and Huaimin Wang. 2021. Why API documentation is insufficient for developers: an empirical study.Science China. Information Sciences64, 1 (2021), 119102

    2021

  22. [22]

    Jennifer Fereday and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5, 1 (March 2006), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

    work page doi:10.1177/160940690600500107 2006

  23. [23]

    Shut the f**k up

    Isabella Ferreira, View Profile, Jinghui Cheng, View Profile, Bram Adams, and View Profile. 2021. The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479497

    work page doi:10.1145/3479497 2021

  24. [24]

    Feuston, and Amy S

    Casey Fiesler, Jessica L. Feuston, and Amy S. Bruckman. 2015. Understanding Copyright Law in Online Creative Communities. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133. 2675234

    work page doi:10.1145/2675133 2015

  25. [25]

    Anna Filippova and Hichang Cho. 2015. Mudslinging and manners: Unpacking conflict in free and open source software. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 1393–1403. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675254

    work page doi:10.1145/2675133.2675254 2015

  26. [26]

    Anna Filippova and Hichang Cho. 2016. The Effects and Antecedents of Conflict in Free and Open Source Software Development. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, San Francisco California USA, 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820018

    work page doi:10.1145/2818048.2820018 2016

  27. [27]

    Aline Shakti Franzke, Anja Bechmann, Zimmer Michael, Charles Ess, and The Association of Internet Researchers

  28. [28]

    https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf

    Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf

  29. [29]

    Guo Freeman. 2016. Making Games as Collaborative Social Experiences: Exploring An Online Gaming Community. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW ’16 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 265–268. https://doi.org/10. 1145/2818052.2869076

    work page arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Guo Freeman, Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Nathan McNeese. 2020. Mitigating Exploitation: Indie Game Developers’ Reconfigurations of Labor in Technology.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW1 (May 2020), 56:1–56:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392864 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2018. 20 Cai et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3392864 2020

  31. [31]

    Guo Freeman, Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Nathan J. McNeese. 2019. The Innovation Ecology: Collaborative Information, Community Support, and Policy in a Creative Technology Community. InInformation in Contemporary Society, Natalie Greene Taylor, Caitlin Christian-Lamb, Michelle H. Martin, and Bonnie Nardi (Eds.). Springer International Publishi...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_58 2019

  32. [32]

    Guo Freeman, Lingyuan Li, Nathan Mcneese, and Kelsea Schulenberg. 2023. Understanding and Mitigating Challenges for Non-Profit Driven Indie Game Development to Innovate Game Production. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580976

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580976 2023

  33. [33]

    Pro-Amateur

    Guo Freeman, Nathan McNeese, Jeffrey Bardzell, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2020. "Pro-Amateur"-Driven Technological Innovation: Participation and Challenges in Indie Game Development.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, GROUP (Jan. 2020), 04:1–04:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375184

    work page doi:10.1145/3375184 2020

  34. [34]

    Guo Freeman and Nathan J. McNeese. 2019. Exploring Indie Game Development: Team Practices and Social Experiences in A Creativity-Centric Technology Community.Computer Supported Cooperative Work28, 3-4 (June 2019), 723–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09348-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-019-09348-x 2019

  35. [35]

    Guo Freeman and Nathan J. McNeese. 2021. A Tale of Creativity and Struggles: Team Practices for Bottom-Up Innovation in Virtual Game Jams.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 76:1–76:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449150

    work page doi:10.1145/3449150 2021

  36. [36]

    French and Kristen M

    Kimberly A. French and Kristen M. Shockley. 2020. Formal and Informal Supports for Managing Work and Family. Current Directions in Psychological Science29, 2 (April 2020), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420906218

    work page doi:10.1177/0963721420906218 2020

  37. [37]

    Chaim Gartenberg. 2017. Twitch announces new Extensions program to let streamers customize their pages. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/30/16229670/twitch-extensions-program-customize-page-amazon-affiliate

    2017

  38. [38]

    Ahmad Ghazawneh and Ola Henfridsson. 2013. Balancing platform control and external contribution in third- party development: the boundary resources model.Information Systems Journal23, 2 (March 2013), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2575.2012.00406.X

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00406.x 2013

  39. [39]

    Sarah Gilbert. 2023. Towards Intersectional Moderation: An Alternative Model of Moderation Built on Care and Power.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 256:1–256:32. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3610047

    work page doi:10.1145/3610047 2023

  40. [40]

    Mareike Glöss, Moira McGregor, and Barry Brown. 2016. Designing for Labour: Uber and the On-Demand Mobile Workforce. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1632–1643. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858476

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858476 2016

  41. [41]

    Jean-Philippe Gouin, Chelsea da Estrela, Kim Desmarais, and Erin T. Barker. 2016. The Impact of Formal and Informal Support on Health in the Context of Caregiving Stress.Family Relations65, 1 (2016), 191–206. https: //doi.org/10.1111/fare.12183

    work page doi:10.1111/fare.12183 2016

  42. [42]

    Rafael Grohmann, Gabriel Pereira, Abel Guerra, Ludmila Costhek Abilio, Bruno Moreschi, and Amanda Jurno. 2022. Platform scams: Brazilian workers’ experiences of dishonest and uncertain algorithmic management.New Media & Society24, 7 (July 2022), 1611–1631. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099225

    work page doi:10.1177/14614448221099225 2022

  43. [43]

    Xinning Gui, Yu Chen, Yubo Kou, Katie Pine, and Yunan Chen. 2017. Investigating Support Seeking from Peers for Pregnancy in Online Health Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134685

    work page doi:10.1145/3134685 2017

  44. [44]

    Carl Gutwin, Reagan Penner, and Kevin Schneider. 2004. Group awareness in distributed software development. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, Chicago Illinois USA, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031621

    work page doi:10.1145/1031607.1031621 2004

  45. [45]

    Anja Guzzi, Alberto Bacchelli, Yann Riche, and Arie van Deursen. 2015. Supporting Developers’ Coordination in the IDE. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675177

    work page doi:10.1145/2675133.2675177 2015

  46. [46]

    Hamilton, Oliver Garretson, and Andruid Kerne

    William A. Hamilton, Oliver Garretson, and Andruid Kerne. 2014. Streaming on twitch: Fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. InConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557048

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557048 2014

  47. [47]

    Hancock, and Zakir Durumeric

    Catherine Han, Joseph Seering, Deepak Kumar, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Zakir Durumeric. 2023. Hate Raids on Twitch: Echoes of the Past, New Modalities, and Implications for Platform Governance.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579609

    work page doi:10.1145/3579609 2023

  48. [48]

    Mona Haraty, Joanna McGrenere, and Andrea Bunt. 2017. Online Customization Sharing Ecosystems: Components, Roles, and Motivations. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 2359–2371. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998289

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998289 2017

  49. [49]

    Ohhh, He’s the Boss!

    Jazlyn Hellman, Itai Epstein, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L. C. Guo. 2025. "Ohhh, He’s the Boss!": Unpacking Power Dynamics Among Developers, Designers, and End-Users in FLOSS Usability. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.15494 arXiv:2504.15494 [cs]. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2018. Third-Party Developers’ Support Seeking and Provision 21

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15494 2025

  50. [50]

    Gabriela Hoefer, Talie Massachi, Neil G. Xu, Nicole Nugent, Jeff Huang, Jingbo Meng, Minjin (MJ) Rheu, Yue Zhang, Yue Dai, Wei Peng, Jingbo Meng, Minjin (MJ) Rheu, Yue Zhang, Yue Dai, Wei Peng, Lingyuan Li, Guo Freeman, Kelsea Schulenberg, Dane Acena, Gabriela Hoefer, Talie Massachi, Neil G. Xu, Nicole Nugent, and Jeff Huang. 2022. Bridging the Social Dis...

    work page doi:10.1145/3555530 2022

  51. [51]

    Hou and Wen-Lung Shiau

    Avus C.Y. Hou and Wen-Lung Shiau. 2019. Understanding Facebook to Instagram migration: a push-pull migration model perspective.Information Technology & People33, 1 (July 2019), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-06-2017- 0198

    work page doi:10.1108/itp-06-2017- 2019

  52. [52]

    Jane Hsieh, Miranda Karger, Lucas Zagal, and Haiyi Zhu. 2023. Co-Designing Alternatives for the Future of Gig Worker Well-Being: Navigating Multi-Stakeholder Incentives and Preferences. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 664–687. https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3595982 2023

  53. [53]

    Jung-Kuei Hsieh, Yi-Ching Hsieh, Hung-Chang Chiu, and Yi-Chu Feng. 2012. Post-adoption switching behavior for online service substitutes: A perspective of the push–pull–mooring framework.Computers in Human Behavior28, 5 (Sept. 2012), 1912–1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.010 2012

  54. [54]

    Ma, Veronica A

    Jessica Huang, Ning F. Ma, Veronica A. Rivera, Tabreek Somani, Patrick Yung Kang Lee, Joanna Mcgrenere, and Dongwook Yoon. 2024. Design Tensions in Online Freelancing Platforms: Using Speculative Participatory Design to Support Freelancers’ Relationships with Clients.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 209:1–209:28. https://doi.org/10.1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3653700 2024

  55. [55]

    Wenjian Huang, Tun Lu, Haiyi Zhu, Guo Li, and Ning Gu. 2016. Effectiveness of Conflict Management Strategies in Peer Review Process of Online Collaboration Projects. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 717–728. https://doi.or...

    work page doi:10.1145/2818048.2819950 2016

  56. [56]

    Sohyeon Hwang, Charles Kiene, Serene Ong, and Aaron Shaw. 2024. Adopting Third-party Bots for Managing Online Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 1–26. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3653707

    work page doi:10.1145/3653707 2024

  57. [57]

    Zhang, Christopher J

    Jane Im, Amy X. Zhang, Christopher J. Schilling, and David Karger. 2018. Deliberation and Resolution on Wikipedia: A Case Study of Requests for Comments.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 74:1–74:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274343

    work page doi:10.1145/3274343 2018

  58. [58]

    Joshua Introne, Bryan Semaan, and Sean Goggins. 2016. A Sociotechnical Mechanism for Online Support Provision. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, San Jose California USA, 3559–3571. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858582

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858582 2016

  59. [59]

    Irani and M

    Lilly C. Irani and M. Six Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Paris France, 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470742

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2470742 2013

  60. [60]

    Leonie Jahn, Philip Engelbutzeder, Lea Katharina Michel, Sebastian Prost, Michael Bernard Twidale, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2025. Blending Code and Cause: Understanding the Dynamic Motivations of Volunteer Developers in community-driven FOSS projects. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Associati...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713416 2025

  61. [61]

    Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, Will Sutherland, Sarah Beth Nelson, and Steve Sawyer. 2020. Platformic management, boundary resources for gig work, and worker autonomy.Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW)29 (2020), 153–189

    2020

  62. [62]

    Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler

    Jialun Jiang, Charles Kiene, Skyler Middler, Jed R. Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler. 2019. Moderation challenges in voice-based online communities on discord.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (Nov. 2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359157 _eprint: 2101.05258

    work page doi:10.1145/3359157 2019

  63. [63]

    Yucheng Jin, Wanling Cai, Li Chen, Yuwan Dai, and Tonglin Jiang. 2023. Understanding Disclosure and Support for Youth Mental Health in Social Music Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579629

    work page doi:10.1145/3579629 2023

  64. [64]

    It’s a lonely disease

    Jazette Johnson, Vitica Arnold, Anne Marie Piper, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2022. "It’s a lonely disease": Cultivating Online Spaces for Social Support among People Living with Dementia and Dementia Caregivers.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555133

    work page doi:10.1145/3555133 2022

  65. [65]

    Chelsea Kim and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2022. From Receivers to Givers: Understanding Practice of Reciprocity in an Online Support Community.CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts6, CSCW1 (April 2022), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512938

    work page doi:10.1145/3512938 2022

  66. [66]

    Pyeonghwa Kim, Steve Sawyer, and Michael Dunn. 2025. Gender and Careers in Platform-Mediated Work: A Longitudinal Study of Online Freelancers.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 7 (Oct. 2025), CSCW425:1–CSCW425:31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757606 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2018. 22 Cai et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3757606 2025

  67. [67]

    Kraut and Paul Resnick

    Robert E. Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2016.Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    2016

  68. [68]

    Everett S. Lee. 1966. A theory of migration.Demography3, 1 (March 1966), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060063

    work page doi:10.2307/2060063 1966

  69. [69]

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1603–1612. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702548

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702548 2015

  70. [70]

    Hanlin Li, Brent Hecht, and Stevie Chancellor. 2022. All That’s Happening behind the Scenes: Putting the Spotlight on Volunteer Moderator Labor in Reddit. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16. 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19317

    work page doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19317 2022

  71. [71]

    Hanlin Li, Brent Hecht, and Stevie Chancellor. 2022. Measuring the Monetary Value of Online Volunteer Work. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 596–606. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ ICWSM/article/view/19318

    2022

  72. [72]

    We Cried on Each Other’s Shoulders

    Lingyuan Li, Kelsea Schulenberg, Guo Freeman, and Dane Acena. 2023. "We Cried on Each Other’s Shoulders": How LGBTQ+ Individuals Experience Social Support in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), Vol. 16. ACM, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581530

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581530 2023

  73. [73]

    Ziming Li, Kristen Shinohara, and Roshan L Peiris. 2023. Exploring the Use of the SoundVizVR Plugin with Game Developers in the Development of Sound-Accessible Virtual Reality Games. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.o...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544549.3585750 2023

  74. [74]

    S Likhitha, BS Harish, and HM Keerthi Kumar. 2019. A detailed survey on topic modeling for document and short text data.International Journal of Computer Applications178, 39 (2019), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2019919265

    work page doi:10.5120/ijca2019919265 2019

  75. [75]

    Renkai Ma. 2023. Conceptualizing and Improving Creator Moderation Design with Platform Stakeholders. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 462–465. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3584931.3608927

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    How advertiser-friendly is my video?

    Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2021. "How advertiser-friendly is my video?": YouTuber’s Socioeconomic Interactions with Algorithmic Content Moderation.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 429:1–429:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479573

    work page doi:10.1145/3479573 2021

  77. [77]

    I am not a YouTuber who can make whatever video I want. I have to keep appeasing algorithms

    Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2022. “I am not a YouTuber who can make whatever video I want. I have to keep appeasing algorithms”: Bureaucracy of Creator Moderation on YouTube. InCompanion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’22 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 8–...

    work page doi:10.1145/3500868.3559445 2022

  78. [78]

    Maruping, Sherae L

    Likoebe M. Maruping, Sherae L. Daniel, and Marcelo Cataldo. 2019. Developer Centrality and the Impact of Value Con- gruence and Incongruence on Commitment and Code Contribution Activity in Open Source Software Communities. MIS Quarterly43, 3 (Sept. 2019), 951–976. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/13928

    work page doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 2019

  79. [79]

    David Mellis and Leah Buechley. 2012. Collaboration in open-source hardware: third-party variations on the arduino duemilanove. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1175–1178. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145377

    work page doi:10.1145/2145204.2145377 2012

  80. [80]

    Mareike Möhlmann, Lior Zalmanson, Ola Henfridsson, and Robert Wayne Gregory. 2021. Algorithmic Management of Work on Online Labor Platforms: When Matching Meets Control.Management Information Systems Quarterly45, 4 (Dec. 2021), 1999–2022. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333

    work page doi:10.25300/misq/2021/15333 2021

Showing first 80 references.