Danaé Metaxa

Grace Proebsting, Oghenefejiro Isaacs Anigboro, Charlie M. Crawford et al.

Automated content moderation has long been used to help identify and filter undesired user-generated content online. But such systems have a history of incorrectly flagging content by and about marginalized identities for removal. Generative AI systems now use such filters to keep undesired generated content from being created by or shown to users. While a lot of focus has been given to making sure such systems do not produce undesired outcomes, considerably less attention has been paid to making sure appropriate text can be generated. From classrooms to Hollywood, as generative AI is increasingly used for creative or expressive text generation, whose stories will these technologies allow to be told, and whose will they suppress? In this paper, we define and introduce measures of speech suppression, focusing on speech related to different identity groups incorrectly filtered by a range of content moderation APIs. Using both short-form, user-generated datasets traditional in content moderation and longer generative AI-focused data, including two datasets we introduce in this work, we create a benchmark for measurement of speech suppression for nine identity groups. Across one traditional and four generative AI-focused automated content moderation services tested, we find that identity-related speech is more likely to be incorrectly suppressed than other speech. We find that reasons for incorrect flagging behavior vary by identity based on stereotypes and text associations, with, e.g., disability-related content more likely to be flagged for self-harm or health-related reasons while non-Christian content is more likely to be flagged as violent or hateful. As generative AI systems are increasingly used for creative work, we urge further attention to how this may impact the creation of identity-related content.

Luis Morales-Navarro, Deborah Fields, Michael T. Giang et al.

Despite growing calls to foster AI literacy, there are few available survey instruments designed for children and youth that study computational empowerment alongside construction and deconstruction activities. In such activities, learners' beliefs about their abilities and attributes can impact their engagement. In this paper, we introduce and validate a survey instrument with constructs related to construction (creative expression and problem-solving self-beliefs) and deconstruction (auditing self-efficacy and fascination with auditing), along with more general self-beliefs related to design justice and the value of learning about AI/ML. We administered the instrument to 124 teenagers and assessed the six-factor structure of the instrument using confirmatory factor analysis. In addition to confirming the structure, we found that design justice beliefs strongly correlated with problem-solving, auditing self-efficacy, and creative expression.

Yunlang Dai, Emma Lurie, Danaé Metaxa et al.

Large language models' (LLMs') outputs are shaped by opaque and frequently-changing company content moderation policies and practices. LLM moderation often takes the form of refusal; models' refusal to produce text about certain topics both reflects company policy and subtly shapes public discourse. We introduce AI Watchman, a longitudinal auditing system to publicly measure and track LLM refusals over time, to provide transparency into an important and black-box aspect of LLMs. Using a dataset of over 400 social issues, we audit Open AI's moderation endpoint, GPT-4.1, and GPT-5, and DeepSeek (both in English and Chinese). We find evidence that changes in company policies, even those not publicly announced, can be detected by AI Watchman, and identify company- and model-specific differences in content moderation. We also qualitatively analyze and categorize different forms of refusal. This work contributes evidence for the value of longitudinal auditing of LLMs, and AI Watchman, one system for doing so.