platform policy teams

Abstract: Politically biased AI can shift users' opinions, yet it remains unclear whether model disclaimers protect against such persuasion. We report a preregistered experiment (N=1,586) examining how disclaimer design and user characteristics shape susceptibility to politically biased AI. We varied whether disclaimers identified political bias versus potential inaccuracies and whether they included an explanation. Participants completed two decision-making tasks with an LLM biased against their political views, with outcomes assessed immediately and one week later. Disclaimers identifying political bias and including an explanation reduced persuasion, but effects varied across contexts and did not persist. Individual differences were more consistent predictors: Republicans were more persuaded and reported higher trust than Democrats across tasks. Similarly, participants who used AI more frequently were also more persuaded, whereas those with greater self-reported AI knowledge were less persuaded. These findings suggest that generic disclaimers are not enough: effective safeguards must account for user heterogeneity and context.

Abstract: Article 24(5) of the Digital Services Act (DSA) requires providers of online platforms to submit every content moderation decision they make, with a corresponding Statement of Reasons (SoR), to the DSA Transparency Database (DSA-TDB). Such decisions are classified against seventeen high-level attribute categories that categorize the primary reason for the moderation decision. Because over 99.8% of statements cite a violation of the provider's own terms and conditions rather than a legal provision, the database is overwhelmingly a record of contractual enforcement using catch-all reporting; however, whether its categories actually describe those contractual rules well has not been examined. In this paper, we map the terms and conditions (T&C) of 31 designated online services against the DSA-TDB's high-level category taxonomy using a few-shot GPT-4.1 classifier over 447 policy documents. The analysis concerns how T&C rules are represented in the taxonomy, not how they are enforced. Two findings emerge. First, high-level category applicability varies sharply by service type: unsafe products account for 17.5% of e-commerce assignments and 0.2% of adult-platform assignments, and negative effects on civic discourse reaches 9.9% within the Meta family but is absent from adult platforms, Booking.com, and Wikipedia. Second, the categories have notable overlap among sub-category specifications, which makes assigning a single high-level category to a decision difficult. We argue that catch-all reporting is plausibly in part a consequence of the DSA-TDB's schema and attribute design, and recommend a schema that is differentiated by service type with more mandatory attributes derived inductively from platform governance language.

Abstract: Large language model compliance systems are deployed on the assumption that a verdict depends on the regulatory rule it is given. We test this directly across five models and 20 regulatory and platform-policy domains: delete, swap, or negate the governing rule while holding the case fixed, and check whether the verdict changes (OCS) or the model's internal representation of compliance shifts at all (ICS-delta). Neither moves much: models' verdicts are often invariant to substantial perturbations of the supplied rule, and the guard model, evaluated here under a custom-rule adaptation of its native taxonomy, is the least rule-sensitive and least accurate of the five, barely above chance (51%, versus 90-92% for general-purpose models). This reflects easy cases more than blanket neglect: on cases where deleting the rule changes a previously correct model prediction, models do track it closely. Neither better prompting nor direct intervention on the model's internal representations closes this gap. Accuracy alone does not establish that a compliance verdict is grounded in the supplied rule.

Abstract: Platform policies are increasingly tested on artificial users, making agent fidelity important. Yet convincing fake profiles could also manipulate perceived public opinion before elections. Validation has concentrated on agreement with human behaviour and has paid little attention to whether an agent behaves in line with the profile it was given. The present study profiled eight Serbian participants through a questionnaire, a deep interview, and a written self-presentation, recorded their reactions to sixty-eight social media posts, and asked four language models to predict those reactions under five prompt conditions varying profile content and instruction style. Attitudinal content improved prediction over demographic backstories by a wide margin. Agents matched their stated profiles more closely than participants matched their own survey answers, and consistency proved unrelated to fidelity once profile information was present. Instructing models to respond intuitively and immediately rather than analytically gave the highest fidelity of any condition and cut the compression of individual differences from seven times the human level to three. The advantage held on posts about topics the questionnaire never raised, where that condition reached the highest fidelity of any setup and beat a crowd baseline by a wide margin, which suggests that agents prompted this way could serve as general-purpose simulated users rather than specialists on the topics they were profiled for. Results may bear implications for the development of language models, because intuition-based setups appear better suited to some tasks than reasoning-based ones.

Abstract: AI model updates and service withdrawals can disrupt relationships with AI companions, but research has largely examined individual platform events. Less is known about users' responses when multiple providers implement shared national regulations. We examine users' reactions and collective contestation surrounding China's 2026 regulation of anthropomorphic AI interaction services. We collected RedNote discussions from April 10 to August 10, 2026, used a validated language model for relevance screening, and conducted qualitative content and thematic analyses of 89 posts, 1,425 comments, and 2,005 replies. Users retained, migrated, and reconstructed companions, finding that preserving conversation records did not necessarily restore shared memories or familiar interactions. They compared regulations, platform explanations, and implementations to assign responsibility. Solidarity emerged through mutual aid and appeals to respect other communities' attachments, while disputes over targets and tactics exposed contested terms of collective action. Infrastructural dependence connected relational continuity and collective contestation during this national regulatory transition.