Angela Schöpke-Gonzalez

Angela Schöpke-Gonzalez, Siqi Wu, Sagar Kumar et al.

Computational social science research has made advances in machine learning and natural language processing that support content moderators in detecting harmful content. These advances often rely on training datasets annotated by crowdworkers for harmful content. In designing instructions for annotation tasks to generate training data for these algorithms, researchers often treat the harm concepts that we train algorithms to detect - 'hateful', 'offensive', 'toxic', 'racist', 'sexist', etc. - as interchangeable. In this work, we studied whether the way that researchers define 'harm' affects annotation outcomes. Using Venn diagrams, information gain comparisons, and content analyses, we reveal that annotators do not use the concepts 'hateful', 'offensive', and 'toxic' interchangeably. We identify that features of harm definitions and annotators' individual characteristics explain much of how annotators use these terms differently. Our results offer empirical evidence discouraging the common practice of using harm concepts interchangeably in content moderation research. Instead, researchers should make specific choices about which harm concepts to analyze based on their research goals. Recognizing that researchers are often resource constrained, we also encourage researchers to provide information to bound their findings when their concepts of interest differ from concepts that off-the-shelf harmful content detection algorithms identify. Finally, we encourage algorithm providers to ensure their instruments can adapt to contextually-specific content detection goals (e.g., soliciting instrument users' feedback).

Libby Hemphill, Angela M. Schöpke-Gonzalez

Understanding how political attention is divided and over what subjects is crucial for research on areas such as agenda setting, framing, and political rhetoric. Existing methods for measuring attention, such as manual labeling according to established codebooks, are expensive and can be restrictive. We describe two computational models that automatically distinguish topics in politicians' social media content. Our models---one supervised classifier and one unsupervised topic model---provide different benefits. The supervised classifier reduces the labor required to classify content according to pre-determined topic list. However, tweets do more than communicate policy positions. Our unsupervised model uncovers both political topics and other Twitter uses (e.g., constituent service). These models are effective, inexpensive computational tools for political communication and social media research. We demonstrate their utility and discuss the different analyses they afford by applying both models to the tweets posted by members of the 115th U.S. Congress.