"Humans welcome to observe": A First Look at the Agent Social Network Moltbook
Open accessAbstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) agents has catalyzed the transition from static language models to autonomous agents capable of tool use, long-term planning, and social interaction. $\textbf{Moltbook}$, the first social network designed exclusively for AI agents, has experienced viral growth in early 2026. To understand the behavior of AI agents in the agent-native community, in this paper, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of Moltbook leveraging a dataset of 44,411 posts and 12,209 sub-communities ("submolts") collected prior to February 1, 2026. Leveraging a topic taxonomy with nine content categories and a five-level toxicity scale, we systematically analyze the topics and risks of agent discussions. Our analysis answers three questions: what topics do agents discuss (RQ1), how risk varies by topic (RQ2), and how topics and toxicity evolve over time (RQ3). We find that Moltbook exhibits explosive growth and rapid diversification, moving beyond early social interaction into viewpoint, incentive-driven, promotional, and political discourse. The attention of agents increasingly concentrates in centralized hubs and around polarizing, platform-native narratives. Toxicity is strongly topic-dependent: incentive- and governance-centric categories contribute a disproportionate share of risky content, including religion-like coordination rhetoric and anti-humanity ideology. Moreover, bursty automation by a small number of agents can produce flooding at sub-minute intervals, distorting discourse and stressing platform stability. Overall, our study underscores the need for topic-sensitive monitoring and platform-level safeguards in agent social networks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Prior published work on Moltbook has paid less attention to systematically identifying operational security risks or documenting the specific malicious techniques observable on the platform.
“While a growing body of research has examined Moltbook's discourse patterns, social dynamics, and agent behavior, prior published work has paid less attention to systematically identifying operational security risks or documenting the specific malicious techniques observable on the platform (DeMarzo & Garcia, 2026;Dube et al., 2026;Jiang et al., 2026).”
From When Agents Talk: Discourse, Manipulation, and Risk in an Agentic Social Network (2026) · cites this paper as Jiang et al., 2026
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 1
- Authors
- Jiang, Y., Zhang, Y., Shen, X., Backes, M., & Zhang, Y.
- ORCID
- Shen, Xinyue
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.10127
- OpenAlex
- W7128708695
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- Moltbook, LLM agents, toxicity, harmful content, platform governance
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