In pseudonymous online fora like Reddit, the benefits of self-disclosure are often apparent to users (e.g., I can vent about my in-laws to understanding strangers), but the privacy risks are more abstract (e.g., will my partner be able to tell that this is me?). Prior work has sought to develop natural language processing (NLP) tools that help users identify potentially risky self-disclosures in their text, but none have been designed for or evaluated with the users they hope to protect. Absent this assessment, these tools will be limited by the social-technical gap: users need assistive tools that help them make informed decisions, not paternalistic tools that tell them to avoid self-disclosure altogether. To bridge this gap, we conducted a study with N = 21 Reddit users; we had them use a state-of-the-art NLP disclosure detection model on two of their authored posts and asked them questions to understand if and how the model helped, where it fell short, and how it could be improved to help them make more informed decisions. Despite its imperfections, users responded positively to the model and highlighted its use as a tool that can help them catch mistakes, inform them of risks they were unaware of, and encourage self-reflection. However, our work also shows how, to be useful and usable, AI for supporting privacy decision-making must account for posting context, disclosure norms, and users' lived threat models, and provide explanations that help contextualize detected risks.

Given the rising proliferation and diversity of AI writing assistance tools, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), both writers and readers may have concerns about the impact of these tools on the authenticity of writing work. We examine whether and how writers want to preserve their authentic voice when co-writing with AI tools and whether personalization of AI writing support could help achieve this goal. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 professional writers, during which they co-wrote with both personalized and non-personalized AI writing-support tools. We supplemented writers' perspectives with opinions from 30 avid readers about the written work co-produced with AI collected through an online survey. Our findings illuminate conceptions of authenticity in human-AI co-creation, which focus more on the process and experience of constructing creators' authentic selves. While writers reacted positively to personalized AI writing tools, they believed the form of personalization needs to target writers' growth and go beyond the phase of text production. Overall, readers' responses showed less concern about human-AI co-writing. Readers could not distinguish AI-assisted work, personalized or not, from writers' solo-written work and showed positive attitudes toward writers experimenting with new technology for creative writing.

The rise in eating disorders, a dangerous mental health condition with high mortality and morbidity, has been linked to the proliferation of idealized body images on social media. However, the link between social media and eating disorders is far more complex. We argue that social media platforms create a feedback loop that amplifies the growth of content and communities that promote eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia. Specifically, social media platforms make it easy for vulnerable individuals to find and connect to like-minded others, while group dynamic processes encourage them to stay engaged within communities that promote and glorify harmful behaviors linked to eating disorders. We characterize this dynamic empirically through a combination of network and language analysis. We describe a novel framework that leverages large language models to analyze the discourse within online communities and probe their attitudes on topics related to eating disorders to identify potentially harmful content. Our work emphasizes the need for better social media moderation to disrupt harmful feedback loops and protect vulnerable individuals.

Can we design artificial intelligence (AI) systems that rank our social media feeds to consider democratic values such as mitigating partisan animosity as part of their objective functions? We introduce a method for translating established, vetted social scientific constructs into AI objective functions, which we term societal objective functions, and demonstrate the method with application to the political science construct of anti-democratic attitudes. Traditionally, we have lacked observable outcomes to use to train such models, however, the social sciences have developed survey instruments and qualitative codebooks for these constructs, and their precision facilitates translation into detailed prompts for large language models. We apply this method to create a democratic attitude model that estimates the extent to which a social media post promotes anti-democratic attitudes, and test this democratic attitude model across three studies. In Study 1, we first test the attitudinal and behavioral effectiveness of the intervention among US partisans (N=1,380) by manually annotating (alpha=.895) social media posts with anti-democratic attitude scores and testing several feed ranking conditions based on these scores. Removal (d=.20) and downranking feeds (d=.25) reduced participants' partisan animosity without compromising their experience and engagement. In Study 2, we scale up the manual labels by creating the democratic attitude model, finding strong agreement with manual labels (rho=.75). Finally, in Study 3, we replicate Study 1 using the democratic attitude model instead of manual labels to test its attitudinal and behavioral impact (N=558), and again find that the feed downranking using the societal objective function reduced partisan animosity (d=.25). This method presents a novel strategy to draw on social science theory and methods to mitigate societal harms in social media AIs.

Designing for the social, cultural, and ethical implications of ML are just as important as its technical advances.

The limited information (data voids) on political topics relevant to underrepresented communities has facilitated the spread of disinformation. Independent journalists who combat disinformation in underrepresented communities have reported feeling overwhelmed because they lack the tools necessary to make sense of the information they monitor and address the data voids. In this paper, we present a system to identify and address political data voids within underrepresented communities. Armed with an interview study, indicating that the independent news media has the potential to address them, we designed an intelligent collaborative system, called Datavoidant. Datavoidant uses state-of-the-art machine learning models and introduces a novel design space to provide independent journalists with a collective understanding of data voids to facilitate generating content to cover the voids. We performed a user interface evaluation with independent news media journalists (N=22). These journalists reported that Datavoidant's features allowed them to more rapidly while easily having a sense of what was taking place in the information ecosystem to address the data voids. They also reported feeling more confident about the content they created and the unique perspectives they had proposed to cover the voids. We conclude by discussing how Datavoidant enables a new design space wherein individuals can collaborate to make sense of their information ecosystem and actively devise strategies to prevent disinformation.

The term"dox" is an abbreviation for"documents," and doxing is the act of disclosing private, sensitive, or personally identifiable information about a person without their consent. Sensitive information can be considered as any type of confidential information or any information that can be used to identify a person uniquely. This information is called doxed information and includes demographic information [53] such as birthday, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and religion, or location information which can be used to precisely or approximately locate a person such as the street address, ZIP code, IP address, and GPS coordinates. Other categories of doxed information are identity documents like passport number and social security number, contact information like phone number and email address, financial information such as credit card and bank account details, or sign-in credentials such as usernames and passwords[15]. Such disclosure may have various consequences. It may encourage forms of bigotry and hate groups, encourage human or child trafficking and endanger people's lives or reputations, scare and intimidate people by swatting

While algorithm audits are growing rapidly in commonality and public importance, relatively little scholarly work has gone toward synthesizing prior work and strategizing future research in the area. This systematic literature review aims to do just that, following PRISMA guidelines in a review of over 500 English articles that yielded 62 algorithm audit studies. The studies are synthesized and organized primarily by behavior (discrimination, distortion, exploitation, and misjudgement), with codes also provided for domain (e.g. search, vision, advertising, etc.), organization (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.), and audit method (e.g. sock puppet, direct scrape, crowdsourcing, etc.). The review shows how previous audit studies have exposed public-facing algorithms exhibiting problematic behavior, such as search algorithms culpable of distortion and advertising algorithms culpable of discrimination. Based on the studies reviewed, it also suggests some behaviors (e.g. discrimination on the basis of intersectional identities), domains (e.g. advertising algorithms), methods (e.g. code auditing), and organizations (e.g. Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn) that call for future audit attention. The paper concludes by offering the common ingredients of successful audits, and discussing algorithm auditing in the context of broader research working toward algorithmic justice.

Complex machine learning models are deployed in several critical domains including healthcare and autonomous vehicles nowadays, albeit as functional black boxes. Consequently, there has been a recent surge in interpreting decisions of such complex models in order to explain their actions to humans. Models that correspond to human interpretation of a task are more desirable in certain contexts and can help attribute liability, build trust, expose biases and in turn build better models. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how and which models conform to human understanding of tasks. In this paper, we present a large-scale crowdsourcing study that reveals and quantifies the dissonance between human and machine understanding, through the lens of an image classification task. In particular, we seek to answer the following questions: Which (well-performing) complex ML models are closer to humans in their use of features to make accurate predictions? How does task difficulty affect the feature selection capability of machines in comparison to humans? Are humans consistently better at selecting features that make image recognition more accurate? Our findings have important implications on human-machine collaboration, considering that a long term goal in the field of artificial intelligence is to make machines capable of learning and reasoning like humans.

Writing is a complex non-linear process that begins with a mental model of intent, and progresses through an outline of ideas, to words on paper (and their subsequent refinement). Despite past research in understanding writing, Web-scale consumer and enterprise collaborative digital writing environments are yet to greatly benefit from intelligent systems that understand the stages of document evolution, providing opportune assistance based on authors' situated actions and context. In this paper, we present three studies that explore temporal stages of document authoring. We first survey information workers at a large technology company about their writing habits and preferences, concluding that writers do in fact conceptually progress through several distinct phases while authoring documents. We also explore, qualitatively, how writing stages are linked to document lifespan. We supplement these qualitative findings with an analysis of the longitudinal user interaction logs of a popular digital writing platform over several million documents. Finally, as a first step towards facilitating an intelligent digital writing assistant, we conduct a preliminary investigation into the utility of user interaction log data for predicting the temporal stage of a document. Our results support the benefit of tools tailored to writing stages, identify primary tasks associated with these stages, and show that it is possible to predict stages from anonymous interaction logs. Together, these results argue for the benefit and feasibility of more tailored digital writing assistance.