Beyond Effectiveness: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Comparing Practical Socio-Technical Interventions

Designers and policymakers in sociotechnical domains like content moderation, privacy interfaces, recommender systems and beyond, must choose among a growing menu of proposed interventions, but typically lack a principled basis for comparing them. Prior work tends to evaluate interventions individually and mostly along the effectiveness criteria, while implementation constraints such as cost, effort and feasibility are often considered separately. We present a multi-criteria framework for evaluating sociotechnical interventions. This framework is instantiated through the case of misinformation, a domain of intense focus for proposed countermeasures. We survey $N=39$ researchers on 40 operationalized interventions across five evaluative criteria: political feasibility, effectiveness, user acceptance, cost, and implementation effort. We find that the interventions that experts judge to be the most effective are not always the most acceptable to the public or the most feasible to implement. We also discuss how this tension has implications for the design of sociotechnical interventions beyond misinformation, and offer a decision framework for practitioners navigating the trade-offs of sociotechnical interventions.

Auditing Exposure to Harmful Content on TikTok using Multimodal Language Models: A Cross-National, Age-Stratified Study

Online video platforms can expose young users to harmful content, but independent audits remain difficult because video annotation is costly and moderation judgments vary across languages. We audit TikTok in France, Italy, and Sweden with sockpuppet accounts representing four age personas (13, 16, 19, 40), collecting 36,971 videos from passive For-You-page scrolling and active sessions that scroll, search for harm keywords, and scroll again. To scale annotation, we validate four multimodal LLMs against native-speaker labels on a 300-video reference set. Gemini 2.5 Flash with eight sampled frames plus text performs best (aggregate kappa = 0.42), at half the per-call cost of native-video upload, and we apply it to a 10% sample for approximately \$50 in total API spend across both modalities. Keyword search returns 35-56% harmful content, a 1.5-7.5x increase over the scrolling baseline in ten of twelve country-age combinations; the spike is temporary and flattens the age differences observed in France and Sweden. Under passive scrolling, Italy has the highest harm rate at every age, with Italian age-19 reaching 48.6%. Overall, MLLM-based auditing offers a scalable approach for cross-national youth-safety audits, while provider safety filters (1.1% refusal rate) under-count the most explicit harms.

Whose Judgments Count? Representation Gaps in Crowdsourced Content Moderation Produce Unequal Protection from Perceived Toxicity

Content moderation is a central form of digital governance, yet people disagree over what content should be removed from shared online spaces. While platforms aggregate human judgments to build moderation systems, it remains unclear how this process shapes which users are protected from content they perceive as toxic. We address this gap by combining large-scale judgment data with counterfactual simulations that trace how the demographic composition of moderator pools shapes the distribution of protection across users. Applying this framework to removal judgments from 16,221 U.S. respondents evaluating 102,463 comments from Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan, we find demographic heterogeneities in moderation demand. We further reveal a consistent pattern of in-group protection: reductions in perceived toxicity accrue disproportionately to users who share the demographic identities of the moderator pool. Crucially, moderator pools that mirror the demographic composition of self-identified moderators on Prolific widen these disparities relative to a nationally representative baseline, while even fully representative pools fail to ensure equal protection: Black and LGB users remain underprotected unless they are represented well beyond their population share. These findings show that unequal protection from perceived toxicity can arise structurally from the aggregation of stratified removal standards, making the demographic composition of moderation inputs a key determinant of who is protected online.

Manufactured Divisiveness: Decomposing the Hostile Content of Seven Social Media Influence Operations

State-backed influence operations are routinely measured as high-prevalence sources of ``hate'' and ``toxicity.'' We argue those rates rest on a measurement error: the detectors behind them are validated to catch a broader definition inclusive of hostility or divisiveness aimed at an out-group, and so over-attribute hate to content better described as partisan or geopolitical invective. Across 25.08M tweets from seven government-attributed campaigns in the Twitter Information Operations archive (8,275 accounts), we separate hate from the other forms of divisiveness. We first validate a two-prompt LLM-based detector, matching human labels at Cohen's $κ=0.82$, to identify the broader hostility; we then develop an auditable rule, agreeing with an expert at $κ=0.52$, to further classify this content (5,457 posts) into three sub-categories. About 50.1% are identity-based attacks on people, whereas 30.4% are partisan attacks and 19.5% invective against states and their foreign policy. Reporting all of it as hate therefore overstates hate roughly twofold; only 18.7% is both identity-based and dehumanizing or inciting. Six of seven campaigns sort into three regimes that a single ``hate'' rate flattens, namely identity hate (RU-op and IRA, both Russia-attributed), geopolitical invective (both Iran operations), and partisan divisiveness (both Venezuela operations). We call the shared product $manufactured divisiveness$. The line to separate these constructs itself remains unsettled: on the hardest cases three independent human experts agree only moderately (pairwise $κ=0.37$--$0.50$), and the best of nineteen LLM models tops out at $κ=0.601$ against the experts' majority. Our findings can help redefine the study of hate in the context of influence campaigns and broader online discourse.

How Human Feedback Shapes AI-generated Community Notes

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

Mod-Guide: An LLM-based Content Moderation Feedback System to Address Insensitive Speech toward Indigenous Ethnic and Religious Minority Communities

Language operates as a mechanism of both marginalization and resistance, especially for minority communities navigating insensitive and harmful speech online. As content moderation increasingly depends on large language models (LLMs), concerns arise about whether these systems can recognize culturally insensitive speech-language that disregards or marginalizes the cultural and religious perspectives of historically underrepresented communities, often through implicit erasure, misrepresentation, or normative framing, rather than overt hostility. Focusing on Bangladesh's Hindu and Chakma communities -- the country's largest religious and Indigenous ethnic minorities, respectively -- this paper investigates the epistemic limits of LLM-based moderation systems and explores methods for incorporating minority perspectives. We co-created a culturally grounded corpus of insensitive speech with community members and integrated their narratives into moderation pipelines using retrieval augmented generation (RAG). Our tool, Mod-Guide, improves LLM sensitivity to minority viewpoints by leveraging contextual cues derived from lived experience. Through mixed-method evaluations involving both minority and majority participants, we demonstrate that RAG-enhanced moderation responses are more contextually accurate and perceived differently across ethnic lines. This work advances research in human-computer interaction, AI ethics, and social computing by foregrounding restorative justice and hermeneutical inclusion in the design of content moderation systems.