pith. sign in

arxiv: 2311.07879 · v4 · pith:62UK6PZQnew · submitted 2023-11-14 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Toxicity Detection is NOT all you Need: Measuring the Gaps to Supporting Volunteer Content Moderators

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords modelsmoderationmoderatorscontentrulesvolunteerconductdeveloping
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Extensive efforts in automated approaches for content moderation have been focused on developing models to identify toxic, offensive, and hateful content with the aim of lightening the load for moderators. Yet, it remains uncertain whether improvements on those tasks have truly addressed moderators' needs in accomplishing their work. In this paper, we surface gaps between past research efforts that have aimed to provide automation for aspects of content moderation and the needs of volunteer content moderators, regarding identifying violations of various moderation rules. To do so, we conduct a model review on Hugging Face to reveal the availability of models to cover various moderation rules and guidelines from three exemplar forums. We further put state-of-the-art LLMs to the test, evaluating how well these models perform in flagging violations of platform rules from one particular forum. Finally, we conduct a user survey study with volunteer moderators to gain insight into their perspectives on useful moderation models. Overall, we observe a non-trivial gap, as missing developed models and LLMs exhibit moderate to low performance on a significant portion of the rules. Moderators' reports provide guides for future work on developing moderation assistant models.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Seeing Like an AI: How LLMs Apply (and Misapply) Wikipedia Neutrality Norms

    cs.CL 2024-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLMs achieve 64% accuracy detecting Wikipedia bias and remove 79% of words removed by editors when correcting, but produce high-recall low-precision edits rated more neutral by crowds than human versions.