Revealing Hidden Mechanisms of Cross-Country Content Moderation with Natural Language Processing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The ability of Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods to categorize text into multiple classes has motivated their use in online content moderation tasks, such as hate speech and fake news detection. However, there is limited understanding of how or why these methods make such decisions, or why certain content is moderated in the first place. To investigate the hidden mechanisms behind content moderation, we explore multiple directions: 1) training classifiers to reverse-engineer content moderation decisions across countries; 2) explaining content moderation decisions by analyzing Shapley values and LLM-guided explanations. Our primary focus is on content moderation decisions made across countries, using pre-existing corpora sampled from the Twitter Stream Grab. Our experiments reveal interesting patterns in censored posts, both across countries and over time. Through human evaluations of LLM-generated explanations across three LLMs, we assess the effectiveness of using LLMs in content moderation. Finally, we discuss potential future directions, as well as the limitations and ethical considerations of this work. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/causalNLP/censorship
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Mar 2025.
Builds on
29 of 61 references.
References · 29
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,935
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
- 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
17 more
- 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 425
- 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 407
- 2024Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language Modelscited by 235
- 2018What Is One Grain of Sand in the Desert? Analyzing Individual Neurons in Deep NLP Modelscited by 124
- 2024Aya 23: Open Weight Releases to Further Multilingual Progresscited by 123
- 2017Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtaskscited by 116
- 2021Generalization in NLI: Ways (Not) To Go Beyond Simple Heuristicscited by 67
- 2018A Unified Deep Learning Architecture for Abuse Detectioncited by 37
- 2021Detecting Harmful Content On Online Platforms: What Platforms Need Vs. Where Research Efforts Gocited by 33
- 2024Content Moderation by LLM: From Accuracy to Legitimacycited by 30
- 2024Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderationcited by 25
- 2024Properties and Challenges of LLM-Generated Explanationscited by 24
- 2023Data Selection for Fine-tuning Large Language Models Using Transferred Shapley Valuescited by 21
- 2024NLP Systems That Can't Tell Use from Mention Censor Counterspeech, but Teaching the Distinction Helpscited by 20
- 2024Tox-BART: Leveraging Toxicity Attributes for Explanation Generation of Implicit Hate Speechcited by 11
- 2019Right-wing German Hate Speech on Twitter: Analysis and Automatic Detectioncited by 9
- 2021A Dataset of State-Censored Tweetscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.