How harassment and hate speech policies have changed over time: Comparing Facebook, Twitter and Reddit (2005–2020)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social media platforms make choices about what content is and is not permissible on their platforms. For example, choices about if and how to deal with online harassment and hate speech are growing problems in many online settings. But these choices are often opaque, can vary from platform to platform, and can change over time with little notice. This study examines the ways Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have defined harassment and hate speech, as well as who they frame as responsible for dealing with harassment and hate speech over time. Using content analysis, the policy structures that house relevant policies, the policy documents themselves, and blog posts are examined. The results illustrate a phased approach to defining harassment and hate, which has become increasingly complex and nuanced over time. Additionally, this work shows a compounding view of who is responsible, which began with users but over time has come to include the platform itself, technology, and external actors such as civil society groups. This paper highlights continued opacity and increasing complexity while also providing contextual historical information necessary for both future research and platform governance decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it