Benefits and rights are integral to modern citizenship in modern society, and information is essential to their utilisation (take-up) process. Such information is often unclear and difficult to find and understand, thus requiring mediation. Who requires mediation, and under what circumstances? Does the right type matter? This study addresses these questions by computerised and manual analysis of 69,696 Israeli social media conversation segments about 29 issues. According to the results, some people need mediation to get information about benefits and rights, regardless of the right type or circumstance they face. We also developed a computerised way to identify the need for mediation in a social media conversation. Future research is needed to deepen understanding of what plays a more significant role in mediation needs – the right type, life circumstances or other factors.
BhargavaSManoliD.Why are benefits left on the table? assessing the role of information, complexity, and stigma on take-up with an IRS field experiment. In: Gürhan-canliZCeleOZhuR (eds) NA – Advances in Consumer Research. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 2012, pp. 298–302.
DaigneaultP-MJacobSTererahoM.Understanding and improving the take-up of public programs: lessons learned from the Canadian and international experience in human services. Int J Bus Soc Sci2012; 3: 39–50.
4.
Van OorschotW. Non-take-up of social security benefits in Europe. J Eur Soc Policy1991; 1: 15–30.
5.
Van OorschotW. Realizing rights: a multi-level approach to non-take-up of means-tested benefits. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1995.
6.
BatesJA.Use of narrative interviewing in everyday information behavior research. Libr Inf Sci Res2004; 26: 15–28.
7.
BenishADavidL.The right of access the administration in the welfare state: the (non-)take-up of social rights and the duty to make social rights accessible. Law Gov2018; 19: 395–427.
8.
KatzE.The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opin Q1957; 21: 61–78.
9.
BlanckP.The struggle for web equality by persons with cognitive disabilities. Behav Sci Law2014; 28: 211–223.
10.
GalJAjzenstadtMBenishA, et al. Active take up in social security. Report, Israel National Insurance, Jerusalem, Israel, 2019.
11.
RafaeliSLeckEAlboY, et al. An innovative approach for measuring the digital divide in Israel: digital trace data as means for formulating policy guidelines. Report, Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research, Hailfa, Israel, July2018.
12.
FriedlandLA.Electronic democracy and the new citizenship. Media, Cult Soc1996; 18: 185–212.
13.
BonfadelliH.The internet and knowledge gaps: a theoretical and empirical investigation. Eur J Commun2002; 17: 65–84.
14.
BlankGGroseljD.Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety, and types. Inf Commun Soc2014; 17: 417–435.
15.
CorreaT.Digital skills and social media use: how internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Inf Commun Soc2016; 19: 1095–1107.
16.
WangF.Social capital or non-human sources? A cross-context study on information source selection of migrant farmer workers. J Inf Sci2023; 49: 1358–1374.
17.
HollerRBenishA.Into the promised land: modelling the role of take-up agents in realising welfare rights. Soc Policy Soc2022; 21: 157–171.
18.
TeevanJMorrisMPanovichK.Factors affecting response quantity, quality, and speed for questions asked via social network status messages. In: AAAI conference on web and social media, Catalonia, 17–21 July 2011, Vol. 5. paper no. 1, pp.630–633.
19.
DeadyKE.Cyberadvice: the ethical implications of giving professional advice over the internet. Georget J Leg Ethics2000; 14: 891–907.
20.
Ben YehudaZ.Access to the justice system for disadvantaged population groups. Report, Research and Information Center of Israel Knesset, Jerusalem, Israel, 2015.
21.
BaxterGMarcellaRMooreN.The effectiveness of parliamentary information services in the United Kingdom. Gov Inf Q2003; 20: 29–46.
22.
Keysar-ShugermanAKrlizZLermanH, et al. Evaluation research on access to information about rights project. Report, National Institution for Testing and Evaluation, Hailfa, Israel, June2019.
23.
RavidGBar-IlanJBaruchson-ArbibS, et al. Popularity and findability through log analysis of search terms and queries: the case of a multilingual public service website. J Inf Sci2007; 33: 567–583.
24.
RavidGBar-IlanJBaruchson-ArbibS, et al. I just wanted to ask: a comparison of user studies of the Citizens Advice Bureau (SHIL) in Israel. J Librariansh Inf Sci2014; 46: 21–31.
25.
TractinskyNRafaeliSPliskinN.Lessons from implementation of a web site for the Israeli citizen’s advice bureau. In: AMCIS conferrence, Baltimore, MD, 14–16 December 1998, pp. 101–103. Baltimore, MD: AMCIS.
26.
AjzenstadtMBen-DavidV.Is it legal??? what can I do??? please help!!! the internet as a tool for workers’ rights take-up. In: GalJAjzenstadtM (eds) Access to Social Justice in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel: Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, 2009, pp. 341–377.
27.
HernanzVMalherbetFPellizzariM.Take-up of welfare benefits in OECD Countries: a review of the evidence. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper Report No,17, 8March, OECD, Paris, 2004.
28.
Van OorschotWKomterA. What is it that ties…? theoretical perspectives on social bond. Soc Wetenschap1998; 41: 4–24.
29.
HollerRBenishAGalJ, et al. Rights take-up in Israel: knowledge review and future research directions. Isr J Soc Policy2021; 113: 5–16.
30.
RafaeliSRabanD.Experimental investigation of the subjective value of information in trading. J Assoc Inf Syst2003; 4: 119–139.
31.
EynonRHelsperE.Adults learning online: digital choice and/or digital exclusion?New Media Soc2011; 13: 534–551.
32.
HargittaiEMarieAPMorrisMR.From internet access to internet skills: digital inequality among older adults. Univers Access Inf Soc2019; 18: 881–890.
33.
HardingAJEParkerJHeanS, et al. Efficacy of telephone information and advice on welfare: the need for realist evaluation. Soc Policy Soc2018; 17: 1–21.
34.
EpsteinDNisbetECGillespieT.Who’s responsible for the digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications. Inf Soc2011; 27: 92–104.
35.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkAGM. The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media Soc2019; 21: 354–375.
36.
RafaeliS.Interactivity: from new media to communication. Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science, 1988, pp. 110–134, https://www.sid.ir/journal/14597/en
37.
RafaeliSArielY.Online motivational factors: incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia. Psychol Asp Cybersp Theory, Res Appl2008; 12: 243–267.
38.
LiuY.Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. J Advert Res2003; 43: 207–216.
39.
FerraraBYEVarolODavisC, et al. The rise of social bots. Commun ACM2016; 59: 96–104.
40.
SofferO.Algorithmic personalization and the two-step flow of communication. Commun Theory2021; 31: 297–315.
41.
CaseDOAndrewsJEJohnsonDJ, et al. Avoiding versus seeking: the relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. J Med Libr Assoc2005; 93: 353–362.
42.
De ChoudhuryMMorrisMRWhiteRW. Seeking and sharing health information online: comparing search engines and social media. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 May 2014, pp. 1365–1376. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
43.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ.Trusting expert- versus user-generated ratings online: the role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Comput Human Behav2013; 29: 1626–1634.
44.
EysenbachG. From intermediation to disintermediation and apomediation: new models for consumers to access and assess the credibility of health information. In: Medinfo 2007: the 12th world congress on health (Medical) informatics, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 20–24 August 2007, p. 162. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
45.
GazanR.Advances in information science social Q&A. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2011; 62: 2301–2312.
46.
HarperFMRabanDRafaeliS, et al. Predictors of answer quality in online Q&A sites. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April 2008, pp. 865–874. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
47.
ArielYAvidarR.Information, interactivity, and social media. Atl J Commun2015; 23: 19–30.
48.
TremayneMDunwoodyS.Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the world wide web. Sci Commun2001; 23: 111–134.
49.
MorrisMTeevanJPanovichK.What do people ask their social networks, and why?: a survey study of status message Q&A behavior. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010, pp. 1739–1748. NewYork: Association for Computing Machinery.
50.
LampeCVitakJGrayR, et al. Perceptions of facebook’s value as an information source. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Austin, TX, 5–10 May 2012, pp. 3195–3204. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
51.
KaplanD.Public intimacy in social media: the mass audience as a third party. Media, Cult Soc2021; 43: 595–612.
52.
MarwickAE.I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc2011; 13: 114–133.
53.
HargittaiEMarwickA.‘ What can I really do?’ explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. Int J Commun2016; 10: 3737–3757.
54.
KuritaKHoriNKatafuchiY.Stigma model of welfare fraud and non-take-up: theory and evidence from OECD panel data. Int J Econ Theory2020; 18: 310–338.
55.
GalJAjzenstadtM.Access to social justice in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel: Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, 2009.
56.
WallDSJohnstoneJ. The industrialization of legal practice and the rise of the new information technology upon legal practice in the U.K. [1]. Int J Soc Law1997; 25: 95–116.
57.
WaltlBMatthesF.Towards measures of complexity: applying structural and linguistic metrics to German laws. Front Artif Intell Appl2014; 271: 153–162.
58.
SchuckPH.Legal complexity: some causes, consequences and cures. Duke Law J1992; 42: 1–52.
59.
Van OorschotW. Who should get what, and why? on deservingness criteria and conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy Polit2000; 28: 33–48.
60.
Van OorschotWArtsWHalmanL. Welfare state effects on social capital and informal solidarity in the European Union. Policy Polit2005; 33: 33–54.
MarxISalanauskaiteLVerbistG.For the poor, but not only the poor: on optimal pro-poorness in redistributive policies. Soc Forces2016; 95: 1–24.
63.
Van OorschotW. Targeting welfare world poverty: on the functions and dysfunctions of means-testing in social policy. In: TownsendPGordenG (eds) World Poverty: New Policies to Defeat on Old Enemy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2002, pp. 171–193.
64.
NimrodG.Older audiences in the digital media environment. Inf Commun Soc2017; 20: 233–249.
65.
BeerSFMarcellaRBaxterG.Rural citizens’ information needs: a survey undertaken on behalf of the Shetland Islands citizens advice bureau. J Librariansh Inf Sci1998; 30: 223–240.
66.
AbbottB.Determining the significance of the citizens’ advice bureau as an industrial relations actor. Empl Relations2006; 28: 435–448.
67.
MarcellaRBaxterG.Citizenship information service provision in the United Kingdom: a study of 27 case agencies. J Librariansh Inf Sci2000; 32: 9–25.
68.
Israel State Comptroller report 2015. Report, State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel, May2016.
69.
GottliebD.Take up of social benefits in Israel: research findings. Isr J Soc Policy2021; 113: 17–47.
70.
SofferO.Mass communication in Israel: nationalism, globalization, and segmentation. New York: Berghahn Books, 2015.
71.
GoldschmidtR.The digital divide and the government policy implementation to reduce it. Report, Research and Information Center of Israel Knesset, Israel, Jerusalem, 2020.
72.
BenishAHollerR.The missing link: the role of take-up agents in realizing social rights. Isr J Soc Policy2021; 113: 203–225.
CaseDOJohnsonJDAndrewsJE, et al. From two-step flow to the internet: the changing array of sources for genetics information seeking. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2004; 55: 660–669.
81.
LiMWalkerR.Shame, stigma and the take-up of social assistance: insights from rural China. Int J Soc Welf2017; 26: 230–238.
