Venire: A Machine Learning-Guided Panel Review System for Community Content Moderation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23448v1
• Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 20:39:34 GMT
• Title: Venire: A Machine Learning-Guided Panel Review System for Community Content Moderation
• Authors: Vinay Koshy, Frederick Choi, Yi-Shyuan Chiang, Hari Sundaram, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Karrie Karahalios,
• Abstract summary: 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. We show that Venire is able to improve decision consistency and surface latent disagreements.
• Score: 17.673993032146527
• License:
• 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.

Related papers

• Explainability and Hate Speech: Structured Explanations Make Social Media Moderators Faster [72.84926097773578]
  We investigate the effect of explanations on the speed of real-world moderators. Our experiments show that while generic explanations do not affect their speed and are often ignored, structured explanations lower moderators' decision making time by 7.4%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T14:23:10Z)
• Content Moderation Justice and Fairness on Social Media: Comparisons Across Different Contexts and Platforms [23.735552021636245]
  We conduct an online experiment on 200 American social media users of Reddit and Twitter. We find that retributive moderation delivers higher justice and fairness for commercially moderated platforms in illegal violations. We discuss the opportunities for platform policymaking to improve moderation system design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-09T22:50:06Z)
• SADAS: A Dialogue Assistant System Towards Remediating Norm Violations in Bilingual Socio-Cultural Conversations [56.31816995795216]
  Socially-Aware Dialogue Assistant System (SADAS) is designed to ensure that conversations unfold with respect and understanding. Our system's novel architecture includes: (1) identifying the categories of norms present in the dialogue, (2) detecting potential norm violations, (3) evaluating the severity of these violations, and (4) implementing targeted remedies to rectify the breaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T08:54:21Z)
• What if you said that differently?: How Explanation Formats Affect Human Feedback Efficacy and User Perception [53.4840989321394]
  We analyze the effect of rationales generated by QA models to support their answers. We present users with incorrect answers and corresponding rationales in various formats. We measure the effectiveness of this feedback in patching these rationales through in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T04:26:32Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Why Should This Article Be Deleted? Transparent Stance Detection in Multilingual Wikipedia Editor Discussions [47.944081120226905]
  We construct a novel dataset of Wikipedia editor discussions along with their reasoning in three languages. The dataset contains the stances of the editors (keep, delete, merge, comment), along with the stated reason, and a content moderation policy, for each edit decision. We demonstrate that stance and corresponding reason (policy) can be predicted jointly with a high degree of accuracy, adding transparency to the decision-making process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T15:11:02Z)
• ChoiceMates: Supporting Unfamiliar Online Decision-Making with Multi-Agent Conversational Interactions [58.71970923420007]
  We present ChoiceMates, a system that enables conversations with a dynamic set of LLM-powered agents. Agents, as opinionated personas, flexibly join the conversation, not only providing responses but also conversing among themselves to elicit each agent's preferences. Our study (n=36) comparing ChoiceMates to conventional web search and single-agent showed that ChoiceMates was more helpful in discovering, diving deeper, and managing information compared to Web with higher confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:49:39Z)
• Towards Intersectional Moderation: An Alternative Model of Moderation Built on Care and Power [0.4351216340655199]
  I perform a collaborative ethnography with moderators of r/AskHistorians, a community that uses an alternative moderation model. I focus on three emblematic controversies of r/AskHistorians' alternative model of moderation. I argue that designers should support decision-making processes and policy makers should account for the impact of sociotechnical systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T18:27:52Z)
• Multilingual Content Moderation: A Case Study on Reddit [23.949429463013796]
  We propose to study the challenges of content moderation by introducing a multilingual dataset of 1.8 million Reddit comments. We perform extensive experimental analysis to highlight the underlying challenges and suggest related research problems. Our dataset and analysis can help better prepare for the challenges and opportunities of auto moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T16:36:33Z)
• AppealMod: Inducing Friction to Reduce Moderator Workload of Handling User Appeals [7.898353262890439]
  We designed and built AppealMod, a system that induces friction in the appeals process by asking users to provide additional information before their appeals are reviewed by human moderators. We conducted a randomized field experiment in a Reddit community of over 29 million users that lasted for four months. Our system is effective at reducing moderator workload and minimizing their exposure to toxic content while honoring their preference for direct engagement and agency in appeals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-17T20:15:20Z)

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.