CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 103Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and Politics

Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels

Open access
Ribeiro, Manoel Horta, Jhaver, Shagun, Zannettou, Savvas, Blackburn, Jeremy, De Cristofaro, Emiliano, Stringhini, Gianluca, West, Robert·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2010.10397arXiv 2010.10397
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

When toxic online communities on mainstream platforms face moderation measures, such as bans, they may migrate to other platforms with laxer policies or set up their own dedicated websites. Previous work suggests that within mainstream platforms, community-level moderation is effective in mitigating the harm caused by the moderated communities. It is, however, unclear whether these results also hold when considering the broader Web ecosystem. Do toxic communities continue to grow in terms of their user base and activity on the new platforms? Do their members become more toxic and ideologically radicalized? In this paper, we report the results of a large-scale observational study of how problematic online communities progress following community-level moderation measures. We analyze data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two communities that were banned from Reddit and subsequently migrated to their own standalone websites. Our results suggest that, in both cases, moderation measures significantly decreased posting activity on the new platform, reducing the number of posts, active users, and newcomers. In spite of that, users in one of the studied communities (r/The_Donald) showed increases in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization, which justifies concerns that the reduction in activity may come at the expense of a more toxic and radical community. Overall, our results paint a nuanced portrait of the consequences of community-level moderation and can inform their design and deployment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.10397

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Mainstream platforms have stricter policies and are subject to some platform-level moderation but benefit from heightened visibility, whilst fringe platforms/forums, particularly those dedicated to incels and misogynistic communities, are more secluded and often lack moderation, resulting in more toxic and misogynistic speech and content.

    “Mainstream platforms have stricter policies and are subject to some platform-level moderation but benefit from heightened visibility, whilst fringe platforms/forums, particularly those dedicated to incels and misogynistic communities, are more secluded and often lack moderation, resulting in more toxic and misogynistic speech and content (Mamié et al., 2021; Ribeiro et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2”

    From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Ribeiro et al., 2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Research examining the language employed on dedicated manosphere and incel forums and subreddits established an increase in violent extremist expressions, including dehumanisation and words depicting violence towards women.

    “Research examining the language employed on dedicated manosphere and incel forums and subreddits established an increase in violent extremist expressions, including dehumanisation and words depicting violence towards women (Baele et al., 2023; Ribeiro et al., 2020).”

    From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Ribeiro et al., 2020

    The Summary of findings (p. 3) reports increased toxicity, hostility, and othering language after migration for r/The_Donald, while changes for the Incel community tended to be statistically non-significant. The user-level analysis (p. 17) does find increased hostility among matched Incel users, but the paper does not establish an increase in dehumanisation or words depicting violence towards women. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [9][9] Cheng, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., and Leskovec, J. Antisocial behavior in online discussion communities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) (2015). -
  2. [28][28] Lilly, M. 'The World is Not a Safe Place for Men': The Representational Politics Of The Manosphere . PhD thesis, Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa, 2016. -
  3. [33][33] Newell, E., Jurgens, D., Saleem, H. M., Vala, H., Sassine, J., Armstrong, C., and Ruths, D. User migration in online social networks: a case study on Reddit during a period of community unrest. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) (2016). -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ribeiro, M. H., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & West, R.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Binghamton University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
5
Issue
CSCW2
Pages
1-24
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2010.10397
arXiv
2010.10397
OpenAlex
W3094590334
Cited by
102
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 12
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2114411)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
platform migration, content moderation, ideological radicalization, online toxicity, user activity

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