Papers for
social media moderators
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Models reveal how hostile online speech unfolds around social groups
Unifying Models of Intergroup Hostility in Online Discourse
Abstract: Hostile rhetoric toward social groups can normalize exclusion and justify mistreatment, as well as contribute to rising polarization and political violence. Efforts to moderate hostile rhetoric in online speech draw on foundational theories in social and moral psychology, and political science. However, these theories were developed largely in parallel, often propose different and sometimes conflicting accounts of how hostility develops, and have rarely been tested against each other in real discourse. The result is a fragmented understanding of the rhetorical mechanisms of hostility, without a clear sense of how they appear, and relate to each other, in real-world discourse. Using 2.86 million posts from TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter/X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we model the mechanisms of six foundational theories of intergroup hostility -- boundary construction, threat construction, scapegoating, negative evaluation, dehumanization, and action orientation -- within a common empirical framework to recover the broader organization of intergroup hostility rhetoric. Structurally, we find that boundary construction and threat construction anchor the system; temporally, we find that these mechanisms tend to follow a regular ordering: boundary construction, derogation, and action orientation tend to appear early; dehumanization and threat construction later; scapegoating latest. Mapping how these theoretical frameworks actually manifest in discourse bridges longstanding divisions across social science traditions and presents computational social science with a clearer empirical foundation for modeling intergroup hostility rhetoric beyond single-label detection.
People in decentralized social media set conditional limits on generative AI use
"Okay, I've Actually Softened My Take on This": How People in Decentralized Social Media Reason about the Appropriateness of Generative AI
Abstract: Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly integrated into social media, raising questions about whether, where, and how it belongs. In decentralized social media (DSM), these decisions are distributed across users, developers, moderators, and administrators, making GenAI a collective governance challenge. At the same time, public discourse often flattens arguments to broad pro- or anti-AI positions that offer little insight into what people actually find (in)appropriate and why. Through 20 semi-structured interviews with people from Mastodon and Bluesky, structured around seven GenAI scenarios, we examine how people reason about GenAI's appropriateness in DSM. We find that participants drew conditional boundaries around particular GenAI configurations through distinct, salient, and weighted considerations spanning technology, integration, and use. We conceptualize this as boundary drawing and show how making such boundaries visible can support more grounded design, policy, and collective deliberation around GenAI in DSM.
A multi-agent method improves responses to hate speech online
A Multi-Stage Agentic Framework for Effective Counter-Narrative Generation and Refinement
Abstract: The rapid diffusion of hate speech and misinformation on social networks challenges democratic societies, since direct suppression efforts may deepen polarization, fuel public distrusts, and strengthen extremist narratives. LLM-driven counter-narratives (CNs) offer a promising way to reduce those risks, yet their effectiveness depends on rhetorical and stylistic choices that remain poorly understood. We present a multi-stage agent-based framework for generating, refining, and evaluating CNs, applied to pro-Russian hate and misinformation narratives on the war with Ukraine and adaptable to other domains. A pilot experiment with human evaluators identifies effective technique style pairings, such as repetition with emotional framing enhancing persuasiveness. Building on these insights, we introduce a multi-agent refinement process that iteratively improves CNs for persuasiveness, emotional engagement, and shareability. After human validation confirmed improvement, an automated safety analysis shows that our refined CNs match or improve on expert-written counterspeech. A simulated experiment then shows that they reduce the perceived strength of pro-Russian narratives and consistently outperform a vanilla LLM baseline, highlighting a pathway toward scalable, narrative-specific interventions against hate speech and misinformation. Code and data accompanying this work are publicly available at https://github.com/carmelkron/inlg2026-counter-narratives.