arXiv (All)
open access
Whose Judgments Count? Representation Gaps in Crowdsourced Content Moderation Produce Unequal Protection from Perceived Toxicity
Content moderation is a central form of digital governance, yet people disagree over what content should be removed from shared online spaces. While platforms aggregate human judgments to build moderation systems, it remains unclear how this process shapes which users are protected from content they
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Algorithmic Compulsion & Civic Media Utilities: A public-health and legitimacy framework for platforms that rank, monetize, and interface attention#95652
- Democracy Reconsidered: Epistemic Challenges, Digital Disruption, and the Deliberative Path Forward#721831
- Is the Future Modular? Mapping Preferences, Benefits, and Risks of Modular Journalism across three Audience Segments#428533
- A Radical Embodied Account of Responsibility#107944
- DIAL: Position-Debiased LLM Judges with Adaptive Human Preference Calibration#1105773
Record · ID 822064
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive