One of Many: Assessing User-level Effects of Moderation Interventions on r/The_Donald

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08809v3
• Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:14:25 GMT
• Title: One of Many: Assessing User-level Effects of Moderation Interventions on r/The_Donald
• Authors: Amaury Trujillo, Stefano Cresci
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the user level effects of the sequence of moderation interventions that targeted r/The_Donald on Reddit. We find that interventions having strong community level effects also cause extreme and diversified user level reactions. Our results highlight that platform and community level effects are not always representative of the underlying behavior of individuals or smaller user groups.
• Score: 1.1041211464412573
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the effects of moderation interventions is a task of paramount importance, as it allows assessing the success of content moderation processes. So far, intervention effects have been almost solely evaluated at the aggregated platform or community levels. Here, we carry out a multidimensional evaluation of the user level effects of the sequence of moderation interventions that targeted r/The_Donald: a community of Donald Trump adherents on Reddit. We demonstrate that the interventions (i) strongly reduced user activity, (ii) slightly increased the diversity of the subreddits in which users participated, (iii) slightly reduced user toxicity, and (iv) led users to share less factual and more politically biased news. Importantly, we also find that interventions having strong community level effects also cause extreme and diversified user level reactions. Our results highlight that platform and community level effects are not always representative of the underlying behavior of individuals or smaller user groups. We conclude by discussing the practical and ethical implications of our results. Overall, our findings can inform the development of targeted moderation interventions and provide useful guidance for policing online platforms.

Related papers

• Beyond Trial-and-Error: Predicting User Abandonment After a Moderation Intervention [0.6918368994425961]
  We propose and tackle the novel task of predicting the effect of a moderation intervention on Reddit. We use a dataset of 13.8M posts to compute a set of 142 features, which convey information about the activity, toxicity, relations, and writing style of the users. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of predicting the effects of a moderation intervention, paving the way for a new research direction in predictive content moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T08:52:41Z)
• The Great Ban: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of a Massive Deplatforming Operation on Reddit [0.7422344184734279]
  We assess the effectiveness of The Great Ban, a massive deplatforming operation that affected nearly 2,000 communities on Reddit. By analyzing 16M comments posted by 17K users during 14 months, we provide nuanced results on the effects, both desired and otherwise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T15:21:37Z)
• Decoding the Silent Majority: Inducing Belief Augmented Social Graph with Large Language Model for Response Forecasting [74.68371461260946]
  SocialSense is a framework that induces a belief-centered graph on top of an existent social network, along with graph-based propagation to capture social dynamics. Our method surpasses existing state-of-the-art in experimental evaluations for both zero-shot and supervised settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T06:17:02Z)
• Understanding Online Migration Decisions Following the Banning of Radical Communities [0.2752817022620644]
  We study how factors associated with the RECRO radicalization framework relate to users' migration decisions. Our results show that individual-level factors, those relating to the behavior of users, are associated with the decision to post on the fringe platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-09T10:43:15Z)
• Fair Effect Attribution in Parallel Online Experiments [57.13281584606437]
  A/B tests serve the purpose of reliably identifying the effect of changes introduced in online services. It is common for online platforms to run a large number of simultaneous experiments by splitting incoming user traffic randomly. Despite a perfect randomization between different groups, simultaneous experiments can interact with each other and create a negative impact on average population outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T17:15:51Z)
• Make Reddit Great Again: Assessing Community Effects of Moderation Interventions on r/The_Donald [1.1041211464412573]
  r/The_Donald was repeatedly denounced as a toxic and misbehaving online community. It was quarantined in June 2019, restricted in February 2020, and finally banned in June 2020, but the effects of this sequence of interventions are still unclear. We find that the interventions greatly reduced the activity of problematic users. However, the interventions also caused an increase in toxicity and led users to share more polarized and less factual news.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T15:09:51Z)
• This Must Be the Place: Predicting Engagement of Online Communities in a Large-scale Distributed Campaign [70.69387048368849]
  We study the behavior of communities with millions of active members. We develop a hybrid model, combining textual cues, community meta-data, and structural properties. We demonstrate the applicability of our model through Reddit's r/place a large-scale online experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-14T08:23:16Z)
• News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
  We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation. Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content. The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z)
• Causal Understanding of Fake News Dissemination on Social Media [50.4854427067898]
  We argue that it is critical to understand what user attributes potentially cause users to share fake news. In fake news dissemination, confounders can be characterized by fake news sharing behavior that inherently relates to user attributes and online activities. We propose a principled approach to alleviating selection bias in fake news dissemination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T19:37:04Z)
• Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels [20.41491269475746]
  We report the results of a large-scale observational study of how problematic online communities progress following community-level moderation measures. Our results suggest that, in both cases, moderation measures significantly decreased posting activity on the new platform. In spite of that, users in one of the studied communities showed increases in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T16:03:06Z)
• Information Consumption and Social Response in a Segregated Environment: the Case of Gab [74.5095691235917]
  This work provides a characterization of the interaction patterns within Gab around the COVID-19 topic. We find that there are no strong statistical differences in the social response to questionable and reliable content. Our results provide insights toward the understanding of coordinated inauthentic behavior and on the early-warning of information operation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-03T11:34:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.