Cited by 37Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Fast, Accurate, and Healthier: Interactive Blurring Helps Moderators Reduce Exposure to Harmful Content

Open access
Das, Anubrata, Dang, Brandon, Lease, Matthew·2020·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing

Abstract

While most user content posted on social media is benign, other content, such as violent or adult imagery, must be detected and blocked. Unfortunately, such detection is difficult to automate, due to high accuracy requirements, costs of errors, and nuanced rules for acceptable content. Consequently, social media platforms today rely on a vast workforce of human moderators. However, mounting evidence suggests that exposure to disturbing content can cause lasting psychological and emotional damage to some moderators. To mitigate such harm, we investigate a set of blur-based moderation interfaces for reducing exposure to disturbing content whilst preserving moderator ability to quickly and accurately flag it. We report experiments with Mechanical Turk workers to measure moderator accuracy, speed, and emotional well-being across six alternative designs. Our key findings show interactive blurring designs can reduce emotional impact without sacrificing moderation accuracy and speed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/hcomp.v8i1.7461

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies evaluating technological interventions such as image modification through blurring and filters found positive effects like reduced negative feelings while retaining operational efficiency.

    “On one hand some studies (13–15), evaluating technological interventions such as image modification through blurring and filters, found positive effects like reduced negative feelings while retaining operational efficiency.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 37

Authors
Das, A., Dang, B., & Lease, M.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing
Published
2020-10-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
33-42
ISSN
  • 2769-1330 (ISSN-L)
  • 2769-1349
OpenAlex
W4312662230
Cited by
37
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.05
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (publishedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • Texas Digital Library (University of Texas)
  • National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Funders
  • Micron Foundation
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
content moderation, harmful content exposure, images of violence, adult content, human moderators

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review