Abortion has been one of the most divisive issues in the United States. Yet, missing is comprehensive longitudinal evidence on how political divides on abortion are reflected in public discourse over time, on a national scale, and in response to key events before and after the overturn of Roe v Wade. We analyze a corpus of over 3.5M tweets related to abortion over the span of one year (January 2022 to January 2023) from over 1.1M users. We estimate users' ideology and rely on state-of-the-art transformer-based classifiers to identify expressions of hostility and extract five prominent frames surrounding abortion. We use those data to examine (a) how prevalent were expressions of hostility (i.e., anger, toxic speech, insults, obscenities, and hate speech), (b) what frames liberals and conservatives used to articulate their positions on abortion, and (c) the prevalence of hostile expressions in liberals and conservative discussions of these frames. We show that liberals and conservatives largely mirrored each other's use of hostile expressions: as liberals used more hostile rhetoric, so did conservatives, especially in response to key events. In addition, the two groups used distinct frames and discussed them in vastly distinct contexts, suggesting that liberals and conservatives have differing perspectives on abortion. Lastly, frames favored by one side provoked hostile reactions from the other: liberals use more hostile expressions when addressing religion, fetal personhood, and exceptions to abortion bans, whereas conservatives use more hostile language when addressing bodily autonomy and women's health. This signals disrespect and derogation, which may further preclude understanding and exacerbate polarization.

Social media platforms utilize Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered recommendation algorithms to maximize user engagement, which can result in inadvertent exposure to harmful content. Current moderation efforts, reliant on classifiers trained with extensive human-annotated data, struggle with scalability and adapting to new forms of harm. To address these challenges, we propose a novel re-ranking approach using Large Language Models (LLMs) in zero-shot and few-shot settings. Our method dynamically assesses and re-ranks content sequences, effectively mitigating harmful content exposure without requiring extensive labeled data. Alongside traditional ranking metrics, we also introduce two new metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of re-ranking in reducing exposure to harmful content. Through experiments on three datasets, three models and across three configurations, we demonstrate that our LLM-based approach significantly outperforms existing proprietary moderation approaches, offering a scalable and adaptable solution for harm mitigation.

The prevalence of harmful content on social media platforms poses significant risks to users and society, necessitating more effective and scalable content moderation strategies. Current approaches rely on human moderators, supervised classifiers, and large volumes of training data, and often struggle with scalability, subjectivity, and the dynamic nature of harmful content (e.g., violent content, dangerous challenge trends, etc.). To bridge these gaps, we utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) to undertake few-shot dynamic content moderation via in-context learning. Through extensive experiments on multiple LLMs, we demonstrate that our few-shot approaches can outperform existing proprietary baselines (Perspective and OpenAI Moderation) as well as prior state-of-the-art few-shot learning methods, in identifying harm. We also incorporate visual information (video thumbnails) and assess if different multimodal techniques improve model performance. Our results underscore the significant benefits of employing LLM based methods for scalable and dynamic harmful content moderation online.

Short video platforms, such as YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok, are used by billions of users globally. These platforms expose users to harmful content, ranging from clickbait or physical harms to misinformation or online hate. Yet, detecting harmful videos remains challenging due to an inconsistent understanding of what constitutes harm and limited resources and mental tolls involved in human annotation. As such, this study advances measures and methods to detect harm in video content. First, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy for online harm on video platforms, categorizing it into six categories: Information, Hate and harassment, Addictive, Clickbait, Sexual, and Physical harms. Next, we establish multimodal large language models as reliable annotators of harmful videos. We analyze 19,422 YouTube videos using 14 image frames, 1 thumbnail, and text metadata, comparing the accuracy of crowdworkers (Mturk) and GPT-4-Turbo with domain expert annotations serving as the gold standard. Our results demonstrate that GPT-4-Turbo outperforms crowdworkers in both binary classification (harmful vs. harmless) and multi-label harm categorization tasks. Methodologically, this study extends the application of LLMs to multi-label and multi-modal contexts beyond text annotation and binary classification. Practically, our study contributes to online harm mitigation by guiding the definitions and identification of harmful content on video platforms.

Polarization, declining trust, and wavering support for democratic norms are pressing threats to U.S. democracy. Exposure to verified and quality news may lower individual susceptibility to these threats and make citizens more resilient to misinformation, populism, and hyperpartisan rhetoric. This project examines how to enhance users' exposure to and engagement with verified and ideologically balanced news in an ecologically valid setting. We rely on a large-scale two-week long field experiment (from 1/19/2023 to 2/3/2023) on 28,457 Twitter users. We created 28 bots utilizing GPT-2 that replied to users tweeting about sports, entertainment, or lifestyle with a contextual reply containing two hardcoded elements: a URL to the topic-relevant section of quality news organization and an encouragement to follow its Twitter account. To further test differential effects by gender of the bots, treated users were randomly assigned to receive responses by bots presented as female or male. We examine whether our over-time intervention enhances the following of news media organization, the sharing and the liking of news content and the tweeting about politics and the liking of political content. We find that the treated users followed more news accounts and the users in the female bot treatment were more likely to like news content than the control. Most of these results, however, were small in magnitude and confined to the already politically interested Twitter users, as indicated by their pre-treatment tweeting about politics. These findings have implications for social media and news organizations, and also offer direction for future work on how Large Language Models and other computational interventions can effectively enhance individual on-platform engagement with quality news and public affairs.