Emily Saltz

Jonathan Stray, Ian Baker, George Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. · uw

We report the first direct comparisons of multiple alternative social media algorithms on multiple platforms on outcomes of societal interest. We used a browser extension to modify which posts were shown to desktop social media users, randomly assigning 9,386 users to a control group or one of five alternative ranking algorithms which simultaneously altered content across three platforms for six months during the US 2024 presidential election. This reduced our preregistered index of affective polarization by an average of 0.03 standard deviations (p < 0.05), including a 1.5 degree decrease in differences between the 100 point inparty and outparty feeling thermometers. We saw reductions in active use time for Facebook (-0.37 min/day) and Reddit (-0.2 min/day), but an increase of 0.32 min/day (p < 0.01) for X/Twitter. We saw an increase in reports of negative social media experiences but found no effects on well-being, news knowledge, outgroup empathy, perceptions of and support for partisan violence. This implies that bridging content can improve some societal outcomes without necessarily conflicting with the engagement-driven business model of social media.

Emily Saltz, Claire R. Leibowicz

AI chatbots already function as de facto mental health support tools for millions of people, including people in crisis. Yet, they lack the clinical validation, shared standards, and coordinated oversight that their societal role demands. This primer was developed in conjunction with a multistakeholder workshop hosted by Partnership on AI in 2026, convening AI labs, mental health practitioners, people with lived experience, and policymakers, to provide a common cross-sector reference point for the current state of the field of AI and suicide prevention. It begins with an overview of clinical best practices, then turns to how frontier AI systems (as of winter 2026) detect and respond to suicide and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) queries. Together, these provide insight into what it would take to design and implement AI tools that not only better prevent suicide and NSSI, but also promote overall well-being. Drawing on clinical literature, publicly available AI lab policies, an emerging landscape of evaluation frameworks, and conversations with leaders across the AI and mental health fields, we map challenges posed by general-purpose AI chatbots for mental health across model, product, and policy layers, ultimately highlighting priority areas where cross-industry alignment is both urgently needed and achievable.

Beth Goldberg, Diana Acosta-Navas, Michiel Bakker et al.

Two substantial technological advances have reshaped the public square in recent decades: first with the advent of the internet and second with the recent introduction of large language models (LLMs). LLMs offer opportunities for a paradigm shift towards more decentralized, participatory online spaces that can be used to facilitate deliberative dialogues at scale, but also create risks of exacerbating societal schisms. Here, we explore four applications of LLMs to improve digital public squares: collective dialogue systems, bridging systems, community moderation, and proof-of-humanity systems. Building on the input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists, we argue that LLMs both afford promising opportunities to shift the paradigm for conversations at scale and pose distinct risks for digital public squares. We lay out an agenda for future research and investments in AI that will strengthen digital public squares and safeguard against potential misuses of AI.

Emily Saltz, Claire Leibowicz, Claire Wardle

Since 2016, the amount of academic research with the keyword "misinformation" has more than doubled [2]. This research often focuses on article headlines shown in artificial testing environments, yet misinformation largely spreads through images and video posts shared in highly-personalized platform contexts. A foundation of qualitative research is necessary to begin filling this gap to ensure platforms' visual misinformation interventions are aligned with users' needs and understanding of information in their personal contexts, across platforms. In two studies, we combined in-depth interviews (n=15) with diary and co-design methods (n=23) to investigate how a broad mix of Americans exposed to misinformation during COVID-19 understand their visual information environments, including encounters with interventions such as Facebook fact-checking labels. Analysis reveals a deep division in user attitudes about platform labeling interventions for visual information which are perceived by many as overly paternalistic, biased, and punitive. Alongside these findings, we discuss our methods as a model for continued independent qualitative research on cross-platform user experiences of misinformation that inform interventions.