REVIEW 2 cited by
Venire: A Machine Learning-Guided Panel Review System for Community Content Moderation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Research into community content moderation often assumes that moderation teams govern with a single, unified voice. However, recent work has found that moderators disagree with one another at modest, but concerning rates. The problem is not the root disagreements themselves. Subjectivity in moderation is unavoidable, and there are clear benefits to including diverse perspectives within a moderation team. Instead, the crux of the issue is that, due to resource constraints, moderation decisions end up being made by individual decision-makers. The result is decision-making that is inconsistent, which is frustrating for community members. To address this, we develop Venire, an ML-backed system for panel review on Reddit. Venire uses a machine learning model trained on log data to identify the cases where moderators are most likely to disagree. Venire fast-tracks these cases for multi-person review. Ideally, Venire allows moderators to surface and resolve disagreements that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. We conduct three studies through which we design and evaluate Venire: a set of formative interviews with moderators, technical evaluations on two datasets, and a think-aloud study in which moderators used Venire to make decisions on real moderation cases. Quantitatively, we demonstrate that Venire is able to improve decision consistency and surface latent disagreements. Qualitatively, we find that Venire helps moderators resolve difficult moderation cases more confidently. Venire represents a novel paradigm for human-AI content moderation, and shifts the conversation from replacing human decision-making to supporting it.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
To Facilitate or not to Facilitate: Human and LLM Facilitator Tendencies in Online Discussions
Human experts are cautious about intervening in online discussions while six open-source LLMs are eager to step in, and a fine-tuned ModernBert classifier predicts real facilitator interventions more reliably than any...
-
From Inquisitorial to Adversarial: Using Legal Theory to Redesign Online Reporting Systems
Online reporting systems are characterized as inquisitorial, and a design space gives users adversarial-style control over evidence disclosure, authentication, and privacy during moderation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.