← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Pushpdeep Singh, Sayeh Jarollahi, Ayan Majumdar, Vabuk Pahari, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Krishna P. Gummadi, Ingmar Weber, Abhisek Dash

Characterizing Bluesky Content Moderation Service: From Automation of Service to Landscape of Harms

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study audits Bluesky’s Moderation Service (BMS) using its 10.6 million public moderation labels from 2025. It finds that BMS operates as a human‑AI collaboration: sexual and graphic content is flagged automatically in seconds, while more nuanced or high‑stakes content requires human review that can take hours or days. The system shows high precision (0.837) but low recall (0.222), with annotators detecting 4.5 times more harmful content than the system, and clustering reveals harms ranging from hostility toward protected groups to the spread of explicit material.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

EvoHarmBench: Breaking Content Moderation with Iterative Human-Like Evasion

EvoHarmBench is a dynamic adversarial evaluation framework that simulates how users iteratively modify harmful content to evade moderation. It uses an optimization loop that evolves evasion strategies at the semantic-cluster level while maintaining human readability, and tests 229 semantic sub-clusters across five violation categories derived from 5,002 real-world adversarial samples. The study shows that even state‑of‑the‑art LLM‑based moderators can be bypassed with an 80.3% success rate after twelve iterations, highlighting significant vulnerabilities in current systems.

By Ruijie Jian, Benlei Cui, Ting Ma, Haidong Ding, Kangwei Liu, Ziwen Xu, Longtao Huang, Hui Xue, Ziqiang Zhu, Junjie Li, Haiwen Hong
llmsbenchmarkssafety
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 3

The Enforcement and Feasibility of Hate Speech Moderation

The study audits hate‑speech moderation on Twitter (now X) using 540,000 annotated tweets from a full day. Eighty percent of hateful tweets, including violent content, remained online after five months, and removal was only slightly more likely than for non‑hateful tweets, far below the rates for scams or adult content. Automated detection could not reliably classify hate but ranked it highly, allowing human triage; however, current staffing curbed little exposure, while substantial reductions were financially feasible and far below applicable regulatory fines.

By Manuel Tonneau, Dylan Thurgood, Diyi Liu, Niyati Malhotra, Victor Orozco-Olvera, Ralph Schroeder, Scott A. Hale, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Paul R\"ottger, Samuel P. Fraiberger
More like this →