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.

When Synthetic Users Fail: A Cross-Domain Benchmark of LLM-Simulated Human Survey Responses

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

Sympathetic Framing: Evaluating AI Alignment across Sociodemographic Groups

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview. This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing? In this work, we empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception. Considering news headlines covering political and geopolitical conflicts, both human participants (n = 3011, a representative sample of the U.K. adult population, via a YouGov survey) and seven LLMs answered whether headlines evoked sympathy for a specified side in a conflict. We find that the correlation between AI and human evaluations varies across models, ranging from very high (0.789, GPT-5.2) to medium (0.4 ,Mistral Large 2512). Crucially, the leading models are broadly aligned with human judgments across all demographic subgroups, including age, gender, level of education, prior geopolitical knowledge, and participants' predispositions regarding the conflict, although there are statistically significant differences between groups. This research, with its robust design and large, demographically diverse dataset, offers the most comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' comprehension of news framing to date. Findings highlight an important, often-ignored aspect of differential alignment: even when aggregate performance is high, AI alignment is not universal -- it may correspond differently with demographic features and cultural norms. Considering or ignoring the need for differential alignment may therefore have significant implications for the development of ethical and useful AI systems.

Towards Inclusive Mobility Modeling: Characterizing and Evaluating Elderly Trajectory Patterns in Urban Systems

The rapid advance of smart cities increasingly depends on trajectory data mining, yet underrepresented demographic groups, particularly the elderly, are often sparsely represented in public mobility datasets. This underrepresentation can introduce systematic bias into mobility modeling and downstream urban planning. Using the 2016-2020 Jersey City subset of the Citi Bike System Data, this study quantitatively examines how the absence of underrepresented subgroups' mobility signatures affects mobility modeling, using synthetic trajectory generation as a case study. The analysis reveals that elderly riders exhibit a structurally distinct mobility signature, including localized activity spaces (958 m vs. 1,189 m for young riders), lower mobility entropy (1.82 vs. 4.15), and asymmetric off-peak temporal patterns. To demonstrate that relying on majority-dominated training data yields biased synthetic outcomes, we further evaluate both a first-order Markov chain and a Qwen3-4B model fine-tuned with QLoRA across three demographic training settings: the full population, young riders only, and elderly riders only. Results show that models trained on majority-dominated populations systematically misrepresent elderly mobility behavior, particularly for spatial mobility metrics. The Markov model trained on the full population overestimates elderly step length by 4.5% and dwell time by 8.9%, whereas the elderly-specific model achieves substantially lower errors across most metrics. Comparisons between the Markov and LLM-based frameworks further show that higher-capability models do not necessarily improve subgroup-level fidelity under limited demographic data. These findings underscore the importance of demographic representation in mobility modeling and its downstream applications for underrepresented populations.