Search for: All records

Harmful textual content is pervasive on social media, poisoning online communities and negatively impacting participation. A common approach to this issue is developing detection models that rely on human annotations. However, the tasks required to build such models expose annotators to harmful and offensive content and may require significant time and cost to complete. Generative AI models have the potential to understand and detect harmful textual content. We used ChatGPT to investigate this potential and compared its performance with MTurker annotations for three frequently discussed concepts related to harmful textual content on social media: Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic (HOT). We designed five prompts to interact with ChatGPT and conducted four experiments eliciting HOT classifications. Our results show that ChatGPT can achieve an accuracy of approximately 80% when compared to MTurker annotations. Specifically, the model displays a more consistent classification for non-HOT comments than HOT comments compared to human annotations. Our findings also suggest that ChatGPT classifications align with the provided HOT definitions. However, ChatGPT classifies “hateful” and “offensive” as subsets of “toxic.” Moreover, the choice of prompts used to interact with ChatGPT impacts its performance. Based on these insights, our study provides several meaningful implications for employing ChatGPT to detect HOT content, particularly regarding the reliability and consistency of its performance, its understanding and reasoning of the HOT concept, and the impact of prompts on its performance. Overall, our study provides guidance on the potential of using generative AI models for moderating large volumes of user-generated textual content on social media. 

As content moderation becomes a central aspect of all social media platforms and online communities, interest has grown in how to make moderation decisions contestable. On social media platforms where individual communities moderate their own activities, the responsibility to address user appeals falls on volunteers from within the community. While there is a growing body of work devoted to understanding and supporting the volunteer moderators' workload, little is known about their practice of handling user appeals. Through a collaborative and iterative design process with Reddit moderators, we found that moderators spend considerable effort in investigating user ban appeals and desired to directly engage with users and retain their agency over each decision. To fulfill their needs, we designed and built AppealMod, a system that induces friction in the appeals process by asking users to provide additional information before their appeals are reviewed by human moderators. In addition to giving moderators more information, we expected the friction in the appeal process would lead to a selection effect among users, with many insincere and toxic appeals being abandoned before getting any attention from human moderators. To evaluate our system, we conducted a randomized field experiment in a Reddit community of over 29 million users that lasted for four months. As a result of the selection effect, moderators viewed only 30% of initial appeals and less than 10% of the toxically worded appeals; yet they granted roughly the same number of appeals when compared with the control group. Overall, our system is effective at reducing moderator workload and minimizing their exposure to toxic content while honoring their preference for direct engagement and agency in appeals. 

Moderating content on social media can lead to severe psychological distress. However, little is known about the type, severity, and consequences of distress experienced by volunteer content moderators (VCMs), who do this work voluntarily. We present results from a survey that investigated why Facebook Group and subreddit VCMs quit, and whether reasons for quitting are correlated with psychological distress, demographics, and/or community characteristics. We found that VCMs are likely to experience psychological distress that stems from struggles with other moderators, moderation team leads’ harmful behaviors, and having too little available time, and these experiences of distress relate to their reasons for quitting. While substantial research has focused on making the task of detecting and assessing toxic content easier or less distressing for moderation workers, our study shows that social interventions for VCM workers, for example, to support them in navigating interpersonal conflict with other moderators, may be necessary.