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.

Thu 17 SeptComputation and LanguageSocial and Information Networks
The gist
Hostile language online can lead to more division and mistreatment of social groups. The authors looked at nearly 3 million posts on TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter to study six ways hostility happens in real chats. They found that certain ideas, like deciding who belongs in a group and seeing others as threats, appear early and shape how people talk. This helps combine different social science ideas into a clearer picture of how online hostility works.
Open 2609.20808v1

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.

Wed 16 SeptHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
Generative AI tools are becoming more common in social media, but people wonder when and how they should be used, especially on platforms without a central authority. The authors spoke to users, developers, and moderators from Mastodon and Bluesky to learn how they decide if generative AI is appropriate. They found that people draw careful boundaries based on the technology, how it’s integrated, and how it’s used. Showing these boundaries clearly can help design better rules and tools for managing generative AI on decentralized platforms.
Open 2609.18709v1

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.

Sat 12 SeptComputation and LanguageComputers and SocietySocial and Information Networks
The gist
Hate speech and misinformation spread quickly on social media, and trying to stop them directly can make things worse. The authors show a new way to create and improve messages that respond to hateful or false claims using multiple AI agents working together. For example, they focus on pro-Russian misinformation about the war in Ukraine and find that some styles, like repeating ideas with emotional tones, make responses more effective. Their approach outperforms basic AI responses and matches expert-written replies in safety and impact. This method could help social platforms or organizations craft better counter-messages against harmful content.
Open 2609.14178v1