Search for: All records

Detailed targeting of advertisements has long been one of the core offerings of online platforms. Unfortunately, malicious advertisers have frequently abused such targeting features, with results that range from violating civil rights laws to driving division, polarization, and even social unrest. Platforms have often attempted to mitigate this behavior by removing targeting attributes deemed problematic, such as inferred political leaning, religion, or ethnicity. In this work, we examine the effectiveness of these mitigations by collecting data from political ads placed on Facebook in the lead up to the 2022 U.S. midterm elections. We show that major political advertisers circumvented these mitigations by targeting proxy attributes: seemingly innocuous targeting criteria that closely correspond to political and racial divides in American society. We introduce novel methods for directly measuring the skew of various targeting criteria to quantify their effectiveness as proxies, and then examine the scale at which those attributes are used. Our findings have crucial implications for the ongoing discussion on the regulation of political advertising and emphasize the urgency for increased transparency. 

Toxic content detection is crucial for online services to remove inappropriate content that violates community standards. To automate the detection process, prior works have proposed varieties of machine learning (ML) approaches to train Language Models (LMs) for toxic content detection. However, both their accuracy and transferability across datasets are limited. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in toxic content detection due to their superior zero-shot and few-shot in-context learning ability as well as broad transferability on ML tasks.However, efficiently designing prompts for LLMs remains challenging. Moreover, the high run-time cost of LLMs may hinder their deployments in production. To address these challenges, in this work, we propose BD-LLM, a novel and efficient approach to bootstrapping and distilling LLMs for toxic content detection. Specifically, we design a novel prompting method named Decision-Tree-of-Thought (DToT) to bootstrap LLMs' detection performance and extract high-quality rationales. DToT can automatically select more fine-grained context to re-prompt LLMs when their responses lack confidence. Additionally, we use the rationales extracted via DToT to fine-tune student LMs. Our experimental results on various datasets demonstrate that DToT can improve the accuracy of LLMs by up to 4.6%. Furthermore, student LMs fine-tuned with rationales extracted via DToT outperform baselines on all datasets with up to 16.9% accuracy improvement, while being more than 60x smaller than conventional LLMs. Finally, we observe that student LMs fine-tuned with rationales exhibit better cross-dataset transferability. 

Rankings are ubiquitous across many applications, from search engines to hiring committees. In practice, many rankings are derived from the output of predictors. However, when predictors trained for classification tasks have intrinsic uncertainty, it is not obvious how this uncertainty should be represented in the derived rankings. Our work considers ranking functions: maps from individual predictions for a classification task to distributions over rankings. We focus on two aspects of ranking functions: stability to perturbations in predictions and fairness towards both individuals and subgroups. Not only is stability an important requirement for its own sake, but — as we show — it composes harmoniously with individual fairness in the sense of Dwork et al. (2012). While deterministic ranking functions cannot be stable aside from trivial scenarios, we show that the recently proposed uncertainty aware (UA) ranking functions of Singh et al. (2021) are stable. Our main result is that UA rankings also achieve group fairness through successful composition with multiaccurate or multicalibrated predictors. Our work demonstrates that UA rankings naturally interpolate between group and individual level fairness guarantees, while simultaneously satisfying stability guarantees important whenever machine-learned predictions are used. 

Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse today. The opaque nature of the algorithms these platforms use to curate content raises societal questions. Prior studies have used black-box methods led by experts or collaborative audits driven by everyday users to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. However, existing auditing methods face fundamental limitations because they function independent of the platforms. Concerns of potential harmful outcomes have prompted proposal of legislation in both the U.S. and the E.U. to mandate a new form of auditing where vetted external researchers get privileged access to social media platforms. Unfortunately, to date there have been no concrete technical proposals to provide such auditing, because auditing at scale risks disclosure of users' private data and platforms' proprietary algorithms. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation. The first contribution of our work is to enumerate the challenges and the limitations of existing auditing methods to implement these policies at scale. Second, we suggest that limited, privileged access to relevance estimators is the key to enabling generalizable platform-supported auditing of social media platforms by external researchers. Third, we show platform-supported auditing need not risk user privacy nor disclosure of platforms' business interests by proposing an auditing framework that protects against these risks. For a particular fairness metric, we show that ensuring privacy imposes only a small constant factor increase (6.34x as an upper bound, and 4× for typical parameters) in the number of samples required for accurate auditing. Our technical contributions, combined with ongoing legal and policy efforts, can enable public oversight into how social media platforms affect individuals and society by moving past the privacy-vs-transparency hurdle.