arXiv subjects

Mohit Singhal

Publications and source records attributed to Mohit Singhal.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Whose Posts Get Ranked: Identical-Text Exposure Gaps in Bluesky Custom Feeds

Bluesky lets users deploy custom feeds, independently operated recommendation algorithms that the platform serves alongside thousands of others. This paper investigates how evenly these feeds treat posts with the same text. To measure this, we take repeated snapshots of the Top-50 lists that 1,366 public feeds return, and we group posts with identical text, from different authors, that were created before the same list response and closely matched in age. Exposure diverges widely inside these matched sets, which span 250 feeds: in 33% of sets, one copy appears on the list while another does not. Fixed-effects regressions show that this divergence is associated with the author's history on the specific feed. Authors new to a feed receive less exposure for the same text (-0.061 in reciprocal-rank weight), while authors whose posts the feed has returned before receive more. A new author with more followers than the competing author still loses 74\% of head-to-head comparisons. Media and post-type features show no detectable association after multiple-comparison correction. These results are early evidence that access to many independent feeds is not enough to give identical texts equal exposure.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Predicting Custom-Feed Returns for New Bluesky Posts: A Prospective Study

The conventional approach to cold-start recommendation addresses new users or newly introduced items. Bluesky custom feeds create a different setting: independently operated feeds filter content from a shared public stream. In this setting, newly published posts are the cold-start objects, while the feeds serve as candidates. We propose a cold-start routing task in which a newly ingested public post is the query and all rankable feeds in the monitored panel are ranked according to whether each will subsequently return it. We build a still-evolving collect-first, label-later benchmark dataset. The collected dataset covers a fixed panel of 5,000 monitored feeds and contains 17.804 million public posts, 1.865 million observable post--feed return records, and 625,083 valid feed polls. The labels record whether a post is observed among a feed's AppView Top-50 results in at least one poll during the 24 hours after publication. The current experiments use two disjoint 24-hour test folds, each paired with a 24-hour training window and separated by a 24-hour outcome-availability gap. Evaluation is conditional on the 602,186 test posts that have at least one positive observed label and satisfy the metric eligibility criteria; these posts account for 9.04% of all 6,661,658 test posts. Across the two folds, LambdaRank achieves the best equal-fold mean values among the evaluated models: 0.7361 for capped Recall@10, 0.6127 for NDCG@10, and 0.7749 for Hit@10.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Seeking Help in the Digital Age: A Cross-Platform Analysis of Online Support Systems for Technology-Facilitated Abuse Victims

Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA), the use of digital technologies to stalk, harass, monitor or threaten others, has become a pervasive form of interpersonal harm. As victims turn to online sources for guidance, responses can shape how they assess risks, interpret abuse, and choose protective actions. We present a large-scale evaluation of online support for TFA victims across three channels: web search, peer-support forums, and conversational AI systems. Drawing on a decade of victim narratives from r/Stalking, we use qualitative coding and supervised classifiers to construct a dataset of TFA queries spanning 11 categories of technology misuse. We simulate these queries across the three channels and evaluate responses using a unified framework spanning technical, social, and safety dimensions. The framework assesses relevance, accuracy, actionability, persuasiveness, and understandability, alongside platform risks and support characteristics, including social-engineering risk, toxicity, empathy, bias, risky guidance, and support information. We build and validate automated classifiers to scale the evaluation. Our findings reveal differences in support quality across platforms. Google Search and general-purpose LLMs provide more relevant and actionable guidance than Reddit discussions, yet none consistently provide safe, trauma-informed support. More than 65% of victim queries encounter potentially malicious links in search results, over 20% of Reddit discussions contain toxic responses, and conversational AI systems frequently fail to provide risk-aware guidance or concrete support resources. Surprisingly, domain-specific survivor-support chatbots underperform general-purpose LLMs across most dimensions. These findings expose weaknesses in digital support for TFA victims and highlight the need for safety-centered design, evaluation, and deployment of future support technologies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Tag is the Signal: URL-Agnostic Credibility Scoring for Messages on Telegram

Telegram has become one of the leading platforms for disseminating misinformational messages. However, many existing pipelines still classify each message's credibility based on the reputation of its associated domain names or its lexical features. Such methods work well on traditional long-form news articles published by well-known sources, but high-risk posts on Telegram are short and URL-sparse, leading to failures for link-based and standard TF-IDF models. To this end, we propose the TAG2CRED pipeline, a method designed for such short, convoluted messages. Our model will directly score each post based on the tags assigned to the text. We designed a concise label system that covers the dimensions of theme, claim type, call to action, and evidence. The fine-tuned large language model (LLM) assigns tags to messages and then maps these tags to calibrated risk scores in the [0,1] interval through L2-regularized logistic regression. We evaluated 87,936 Telegram messages associated with Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC), using URL masking and domain disjoint splits. The results showed that the ROC-AUC of the TAG2CRED model reached 0.871, the macro-F1 value was 0.787, and the Brier score was 0.167, outperforming the baseline TF-IDF (macro-F1 value 0.737, Brier score 0.248); at the same time, the number of features used in this model is much smaller, and the generalization ability on infrequent domains is stronger. The performance of the stacked ensemble model (TF-IDF + TAG2CRED + SBERT) was further improved over the baseline SBERT. ROC-AUC reached 0.901, and the macro-F1 value was 0.813 (Brier score 0.114). This indicates that style labels and lexical features may capture different but complementary dimensions of information risk.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

How Diplomacy Reshapes Online Discourse:Asymmetric Persistence in Online Framing of North Korea

Public opinion toward foreign adversaries shapes and constrains diplomatic options. Prior research has largely relied on sentiment analysis and survey based measures, providing limited insight into how sustained narrative changes (beyond transient emotional reactions) might follow diplomatic engagement. This study examines the extent to which high stakes diplomatic summits shape how adversaries are framed in online discourse. We analyze U.S.-North Korea summit diplomacy (2018-2019) using a Difference-in-Difference(DiD) design on Reddit discussions. Using multiple control groups (China, Iran, Russia) to adjust for concurrent geopolitical shocks, we integrate a validated Codebook LLM framework for framing classification with graph based discourse network analysis that examines both edge level relationships and community level narrative structures. Our results reveal short term asymmetric persistence in framing responses to diplomacy. While both post level and comment level sentiment proved transient (improving during the Singapore Summit but fully reverting after the Hanoi failure),framing exhibited significant stability: the shift from threat oriented to diplomacy oriented framing was only partially reversed. Structurally, the proportion of threat oriented edges decreased substantially (48% -> 28%) while diplomacy oriented structures expanded, and these shifts resisted complete reversion after diplomatic failure. These findings suggest that diplomatic success can leave a short-term but lasting imprint on how adversaries are framed in online discourse, even when subsequent negotiations fail.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2025

FairDeFace: Evaluating the Fairness and Adversarial Robustness of Face Obfuscation Methods

The lack of a common platform and benchmark datasets for evaluating face obfuscation methods has been a challenge, with every method being tested using arbitrary experiments, datasets, and metrics. While prior work has demonstrated that face recognition systems exhibit bias against some demographic groups, there exists a substantial gap in our understanding regarding the fairness of face obfuscation methods. Providing fair face obfuscation methods can ensure equitable protection across diverse demographic groups, especially since they can be used to preserve the privacy of vulnerable populations. To address these gaps, this paper introduces a comprehensive framework, named FairDeFace, designed to assess the adversarial robustness and fairness of face obfuscation methods. The framework introduces a set of modules encompassing data benchmarks, face detection and recognition algorithms, adversarial models, utility detection models, and fairness metrics. FairDeFace serves as a versatile platform where any face obfuscation method can be integrated, allowing for rigorous testing and comparison with other state-of-the-art methods. In its current implementation, FairDeFace incorporates 6 attacks, and several privacy, utility and fairness metrics. Using FairDeFace, and by conducting more than 500 experiments, we evaluated and compared the adversarial robustness of seven face obfuscation methods. This extensive analysis led to many interesting findings both in terms of the degree of robustness of existing methods and their biases against some gender or racial groups. FairDeFace also uses visualization of focused areas for both obfuscation and verification attacks to show not only which areas are mostly changed in the obfuscation process for some demographics, but also why they failed through focus area comparison of obfuscation and verification.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

Impact of Stricter Content Moderation on Parler's Users' Discourse

Social media platforms employ various content moderation techniques to remove harmful, offensive, and hate speech content. The moderation level varies across platforms; even over time, it can evolve in a platform. For example, Parler, a fringe social media platform popular among conservative users, was known to have the least restrictive moderation policies, claiming to have open discussion spaces for their users. However, after linking the 2021 US Capitol Riots and the activity of some groups on Parler, such as QAnon and Proud Boys, on January 12, 2021, Parler was removed from the Apple and Google App Store and suspended from Amazon Cloud hosting service. Parler would have to modify their moderation policies to return to these online stores. After a month of downtime, Parler was back online with a new set of user guidelines, which reflected stricter content moderation, especially regarding the \emph{hate speech} policy. In this paper, we studied the moderation changes performed by Parler and their effect on the toxicity of its content. We collected a large longitudinal Parler dataset with 17M parleys from 432K active users from February 2021 to January 2022, after its return to the Internet and App Store. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the effectiveness of content moderation techniques using data-driven approaches and also the first Parler dataset after its brief hiatus. Our quasi-experimental time series analysis indicates that after the change in Parler's moderation, the severe forms of toxicity (above a threshold of 0.5) immediately decreased and sustained. In contrast, the trend did not change for less severe threats and insults (a threshold between 0.5 - 0.7). Finally, we found an increase in the factuality of the news sites being shared, as well as a decrease in the number of conspiracy or pseudoscience sources being shared.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2023

Auditing Yelp's Business Ranking and Review Recommendation Through the Lens of Fairness

Auditing is critical to ensuring the fairness and reliability of decision-making systems. However, auditing a black-box system for bias can be challenging due to the lack of transparency in the model's internal workings. In many web applications, such as Yelp, it is challenging, if not impossible, to manipulate their inputs systematically to identify bias in the output. Yelp connects users and businesses, where users identify new businesses and simultaneously express their experiences through reviews. Yelp recommendation software moderates user-provided content by categorizing it into recommended and not-recommended sections. The recommended reviews, among other attributes, are used by Yelp's ranking algorithm to rank businesses in a neighborhood. Due to Yelp's substantial popularity and its high impact on local businesses' success, understanding the bias of its algorithms is crucial. This data-driven study, for the first time, investigates the bias of Yelp's business ranking and review recommendation system. We examine three hypotheses to assess if Yelp's recommendation software shows bias against reviews of less established users with fewer friends and reviews and if Yelp's business ranking algorithm shows bias against restaurants located in specific neighborhoods, particularly in hotspot regions, with specific demographic compositions. Our findings show that reviews of less-established users are disproportionately categorized as not-recommended. We also find a positive association between restaurants' location in hotspot regions and their average exposure. Furthermore, we observed some cases of severe disparity bias in cities where the hotspots are in neighborhoods with less demographic diversity or higher affluence and education levels.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

The Power of Social Norms: How Initial Responses to Toxicity Shape Conversations on Twitter

Online harassment and abusive language continue to be a growing concern on social media platforms. In this study, we explore the power of group dynamics to shape the toxicity of Twitter conversations. First, we examine how the presence of others in a conversation can potentially diffuse Twitter users' responsibility to address a toxic reply. Second, we examine whether the toxicity of the first direct reply to a toxic tweet in conversations establishes group norms for subsequent replies. By doing so, we outline users participating in the conversation before the first toxic reply and the tone of initial responses to a toxic reply as explanatory factors that affect whether others feel uninhibited to post their own abusive or derogatory replies. We test this premise by analyzing a random sample of more than 187K tweets belonging to ~ 9K conversations. This analysis of group dynamics is motivated by a larger body of scholarship on contagion of antisocial behavior and the power of establishing social norms that maintain rather than sanction toxicity. We find evidence that an increased number of users participating in the conversation before receiving a toxic tweet is negatively associated with the number of users who responded to the toxic reply in a non-toxic way. Furthermore, posting a toxic reply immediately after a toxic comment is negatively associated with users posting non-toxic replies and Twitter conversations becoming increasingly toxic. We argue that understanding how social media users respond to uncivil comments or abusive language reveals social norms as powerful social cues that can shape human behavior online.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2022

User Engagement and the Toxicity of Tweets

Twitter is one of the most popular online micro-blogging and social networking platforms. This platform allows individuals to freely express opinions and interact with others regardless of geographic barriers. However, with the good that online platforms offer, also comes the bad. Twitter and other social networking platforms have created new spaces for incivility. With the growing interest on the consequences of uncivil behavior online, understanding how a toxic comment impacts online interactions is imperative. We analyze a random sample of more than 85,300 Twitter conversations to examine differences between toxic and non-toxic conversations and the relationship between toxicity and user engagement. We find that toxic conversations, those with at least one toxic tweet, are longer but have fewer individual users contributing to the dialogue compared to the non-toxic conversations. However, within toxic conversations, toxicity is positively associated with more individual Twitter users participating in conversations. This suggests that overall, more visible conversations are more likely to include toxic replies. Additionally, we examine the sequencing of toxic tweets and its impact on conversations. Toxic tweets often occur as the main tweet or as the first reply, and lead to greater overall conversation toxicity. We also find a relationship between the toxicity of the first reply to a toxic tweet and the toxicity of the conversation, such that whether the first reply is toxic or non-toxic sets the stage for the overall toxicity of the conversation, following the idea that hate can beget hate.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2022

SoK: Content Moderation in Social Media, from Guidelines to Enforcement, and Research to Practice

Social media platforms have been establishing content moderation guidelines and employing various moderation policies to counter hate speech and misinformation. The goal of this paper is to study these community guidelines and moderation practices, as well as the relevant research publications, to identify the research gaps, differences in moderation techniques, and challenges that should be tackled by the social media platforms and the research community. To this end, we study and analyze fourteen most popular social media content moderation guidelines and practices, and consolidate them. We then introduce three taxonomies drawn from this analysis as well as covering over two hundred interdisciplinary research papers about moderation strategies. We identify the differences between the content moderation employed in mainstream and fringe social media platforms. Finally, we have in-depth applied discussions on both research and practical challenges and solutions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Cybersecurity Misinformation Detection on Social Media: Case Studies on Phishing Reports and Zoom's Threats

Prior work has extensively studied misinformation related to news, politics, and health, however, misinformation can also be about technological topics. While less controversial, such misinformation can severely impact companies' reputations and revenues, and users' online experiences. Recently, social media has also been increasingly used as a novel source of knowledgebase for extracting timely and relevant security threats, which are fed to the threat intelligence systems for better performance. However, with possible campaigns spreading false security threats, these systems can become vulnerable to poisoning attacks. In this work, we proposed novel approaches for detecting misinformation about cybersecurity and privacy threats on social media, focusing on two topics with different types of misinformation: phishing websites and Zoom's security & privacy threats. We developed a framework for detecting inaccurate phishing claims on Twitter. Using this framework, we could label about 9% of URLs and 22% of phishing reports as misinformation. We also proposed another framework for detecting misinformation related to Zoom's security and privacy threats on multiple platforms. Our classifiers showed great performance with more than 98% accuracy. Employing these classifiers on the posts from Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter, we found respectively that about 18%, 3%, 4%, and 3% of posts were misinformation. In addition, we studied the characteristics of misinformation posts, their authors, and their timelines, which helped us identify campaigns.

cs.CY↗