Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

AI and the Future of Digital Public Squares

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This position paper, grounded in a convening of over 70 civil society experts and technologists, argues that large language models can be harnessed to strengthen digital public squares through four application areas—collective dialogue…

desk verdict A useful, honest roadmap for AI-assisted deliberation, but it is an agenda, not a result, and its central bet on LLM fidelity remains untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09988 v1 pith:QADVYKLK submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CY cs.AI

Beth Goldberg , Diana Acosta-Navas , Michiel Bakker , Ian Beacock , Matt Botvinick , Prateek Buch , Renée DiResta , Nandika Donthi
show 19 more authors
Nathanael Fast Ravi Iyer Zaria Jalan Andrew Konya Grace Kwak Danciu Hélène Landemore Alice Marwick Carl Miller Aviv Ovadya Emily Saltz Lisa Schirch Dalit Shalom Divya Siddarth Felix Sieker Christopher Small Jonathan Stray Audrey Tang Michael Henry Tessler Amy Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelsdigitalpublicsquarecollectivedialoguesystemsbridgingcommunitymoderationproof-of-humanitydeliberativedemocracyonlinepolarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that large language models can shift online conversation away from engagement-optimized, polarizing platforms and toward decentralized, participatory deliberation, provided four families of AI-enabled tools are developed carefully: collective dialogue systems that let large publics express views in their own words, bridging systems that rank content by cross-group agreement, community-driven moderation that empowers volunteer moderators with AI assistance, and proof-of-humanity systems that preserve authenticity without sacrificing privacy. It synthesizes input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists, plus applied research. The claim is that this is an opportune moment to invest in these tools, and the paper lays out a near-, mid-, and long-term research agenda. A sympathetic reader would care because the stakes are the legitimacy and inclusiveness of democratic discourse at scale.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the pairing of LLM-based synthesis with bridging-based ranking. Collective dialogue systems collect free-text statements and votes from participants; LLMs summarize and visualize the opinion landscape, generate seed prompts, translate between languages, and predict unwritten votes. Bridging systems use content-quality signals or user-embedding diversity to identify statements that are helpful across disagreement, as exemplified by the Community Notes algorithm. Proof-of-humanity systems such as personhood credentials, verified through zero-knowledge proofs, are the proposed guard against synthetic participation. The argument is that these components, combined with human-in-the-loop facilitation and transparent appeals processes, can make large-scale deliberation both feasible and legitimate.

What would settle it

Run a field trial in which an LLM-based collective dialogue system generates summaries and inferred votes for a large, diverse participant pool, then compare the LLM's inferred votes against the actual votes of a held-out minority sample: if the inference error is systematically larger for minority groups and shifts policy conclusions, the paper's central opportunity fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLMs both afford promising opportunities to shift the paradigm for conversations at scale and pose distinct risks for digital public squares. Concretely, the paper argues that collective dialogue systems can scale deliberative feedback to millions of participants through LLM-based elicitation inference and summarization; bridging systems can reweight recommendation and ranking algorithms to reward content that diverse users find helpful; community moderation can be augmented with AI tools for summarization, simulation, triage, and norm co-creation; and proof-of-humanity systems can combat synthetic participation while preserving privacy, if deployed with the safeguards the paper lists. The paper does not prove these claims with new experiments; it assembles existing evidence and practitioner insight into an investment and research agenda.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that LLM summaries and vote inference can represent diverse human viewpoints, including minority opinions, faithfully enough that AI-assisted deliberation remains legitimate, even though the paper's Section 1.3 concedes LLMs can hallucinate and struggle to represent minority groups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Collective dialogue systems could become a standard complement to citizen assemblies, letting the broader public weigh in on policy questions in their own words.
  • Bridging-based ranking could reduce the engagement-optimization incentive for polarizing content and make misinformation labels more persuasive to a broad audience.
  • Community moderators could get AI support for triage, summarization, and norm co-creation, reducing burnout and improving the legitimacy of moderation decisions.
  • Proof-of-humanity credentials could let platforms treat verified human participants differently, but only if deployed with privacy, inclusivity, and interoperability safeguards.
  • A composable meta-platform with shared data formats and benchmarking infrastructure would accelerate the entire field of deliberative technology.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the research agenda is followed, the most consequential near-term test is whether LLM-based vote inference and summarization can represent minority viewpoints without systematic distortion; a negative result would force the abandonment of the central opportunity.
  • The paper's recommendations implicitly prioritize public-interest infrastructure over purely commercial moderation, a tension with platform business models that the paper acknowledges but does not develop.
  • The combination of content-based bridging attributes (such as curiosity and constructiveness) with user-diversity signals is the most promising direction, though the paper leaves it untested.
  • The proof-of-humanity discussion leaves open the possibility that transparent synthetic participation could be made legitimate, which would reframe the authenticity debate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a position paper that assesses the role of large language models (LLMs) in digital public squares. It identifies four application areas: collective dialogue systems (CDS), bridging systems, community-driven moderation, and proof-of-humanity systems. For each, it surveys current applications, proposes LLM-based opportunities, lists risks, and outlines future research. The paper is grounded in a 2024 convening of over 70 civil society experts and technologists, and it deliberately frames its central claim as a balanced one: LLMs offer promising opportunities to shift conversations at scale, while also posing distinct risks to democratic discourse. The paper does not present new empirical measurements, controlled evaluations, or formal proofs; it is an agenda-setting, normative contribution that calls for coordinated investment in research, open-source tooling, and policy development.

Significance. If taken as a research agenda rather than an empirical demonstration, the paper is a valuable synthesis. Its strengths include a clear four-part taxonomy, explicit acknowledgment of failure modes (notably the risk that LLMs struggle to represent minority viewpoints and the dangers of synthetic participation), engagement with real deployed systems (e.g., Polis, Remesh, Community Notes, Jigsaw's Perspective API), and a set of concrete, time-ordered recommendations for funders, researchers, and policymakers. The paper is careful in acknowledging many risks, and it avoids overclaiming certainty about the benefits. However, its central normative claim rests on an empirical assumption about the fidelity of LLM-based synthesis and vote inference that is not validated in the paper, and the convening methodology that lends authoritative weight to its recommendations is not documented. These are the main points that need work before the paper can serve as a robust basis for the proposed research investments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 1.2 and 1.3 (Elicitation Inference and Risks)] The central opportunity claim for AI-enhanced collective dialogue systems rests on the premise that LLMs can faithfully represent and synthesize diverse opinions, including those of minority groups. Section 1.2 proposes LLM-based vote inference and LLM-generated group statements, citing Fish et al. (2023) and Konya et al. (2022) for predictive performance, but neither citation provides evidence about representation of minority or marginalized viewpoints. Section 1.3 concedes that 'LLMs can occasionally hallucinate information and struggle to represent the opinions of minority groups (Agnew et al. 2024).' If LLM synthesis systematically flattens minority views, then the legitimacy of CDS outcomes, and the bridging and moderation signals built on them, collapses regardless of platform design. This is a load-bearing unresolved assumption for the paper's core thesis. The paper should either supply evidence that minority-faithful synthesis can be achieved, or explicitly restate the central claim as a conditional research hypothesis and elevate the benchmarking and validation of minority representation to a first-order recommendation (for example, in Section 1.4 and the recommendations table), rather than treat it as one risk among many.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1 (Convening Methodology)] The paper repeatedly states that it builds on 'input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists' and 'key insights from that convening,' yet it provides no methodological information about the convening: how participants were selected, what format was used, how the insights were recorded, coded, synthesized, or how disagreements were resolved. Without this information, the claimed expert-consensus basis for the paper's recommendations cannot be assessed or replicated. A brief methods appendix, or even a paragraph describing the process, would allow the reader to evaluate whether the agenda is representative of the stated expert group or an artifact of a particular facilitation. This is not merely a presentation issue: the paper's authoritative framing partly rests on this claimed collective expertise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.2, 'Summarization and Visualization'] The word 'fora' is used where standard English would use 'forums'; the same issue appears in the conclusion.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption lists seven discrete steps in a collective dialogue system, but the main text does not refer to the figure or explain these steps; adding a cross-reference and a sentence describing the flow would improve accessibility.
  3. [Bibliography and references] Several references are incomplete or informal: 'Fbarchive.org' is a raw URL, 'A Discord Moderator's Worst Nightmare' is a YouTube video without a publication date, and the YouTube blog post about bridging is cited without a stable page number; these should be formatted consistently with the journal's style.
  4. [Section 4.4, 'Future Research on Proof of Humanity'] The phrase 'such as verification with anonymity' is vague; the paragraph would be clearer if it explicitly named zero-knowledge proofs and personhood credentials, which are the relevant mechanisms discussed earlier in the section.
  5. [Section 1.2, 'Elicitation Inference'] The statement that pure LLM vote prediction is 'well calibrated, but can be expensive' would be more useful with a pointer to the actual calibration results or error rates reported in Fish et al. (2023), so that readers can judge the strength of the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a position/agenda paper whose claims are supported by external evidence and case studies, not derived by construction from its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a convening-informed research agenda and policy argument, not a formal derivation with fitted parameters or constructed predictions. Its central claim—that LLMs offer both opportunities and risks for digital public squares—is presented as an interpretation of existing evidence, including deployed systems (Polis, Remesh, Meta's diverse engagement, X Community Notes), peer-reviewed or preprint studies (e.g., Tessler et al. 2024 in Science; Wojcik et al. 2022), and expert input from the April 2024 convening. Several cited works have overlapping authors with the present paper, including Bakker et al. 2022, Tessler et al. 2024, Konya et al. 2023, and Saltz et al. 2024, but these citations are used as background evidence of what has been demonstrated elsewhere, not as premises assumed true to force the paper's conclusions. The paper itself flags the key limitation that LLMs may hallucinate or misrepresent minority viewpoints (Section 1.3), which is a correctness risk and an open research question, not a circularity. No equation, fitting step, or definitional identity makes any conclusion equivalent to an input. There is therefore no circular step, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear because the paper is qualitative. The listed axioms are the normative and empirical premises on which the agenda depends.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The public square is an informal track of the public sphere whose healthy functioning requires spaces that are welcoming, connecting, understanding, and action-oriented.
    Section 1.2 adopts Habermas, Rawls, and New_Public's Civic Signals as normative baselines without argument.
  • domain assumption LLM-mediated summarization, translation, and vote inference can represent participant views faithfully enough to preserve democratic legitimacy.
    Section 1.2 and 1.3 rely on this for elicitation inference and synthesis; the paper itself notes hallucination and minority misrepresentation risks.
  • domain assumption Bridging signals such as diverse engagement and content attributes can be implemented without unacceptable manipulation or gaming.
    Section 2 assumes recommender and ranking changes can achieve depolarization; the risk of gaming is acknowledged but not resolved.
  • domain assumption The April 2024 convening with over 70 experts generated representative and reliable expert input.
    The introduction and acknowledgements describe the convening as the foundation of the paper, but no methodology for participant selection or synthesis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI and the Future of Digital Public Squares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QADVYKLK

@misc{pith2026241209988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI and the Future of Digital Public Squares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QADVYKLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09988}
}
read the original abstract

Two substantial technological advances have reshaped the public square in recent decades: first with the advent of the internet and second with the recent introduction of large language models (LLMs). LLMs offer opportunities for a paradigm shift towards more decentralized, participatory online spaces that can be used to facilitate deliberative dialogues at scale, but also create risks of exacerbating societal schisms. Here, we explore four applications of LLMs to improve digital public squares: collective dialogue systems, bridging systems, community moderation, and proof-of-humanity systems. Building on the input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists, we argue that LLMs both afford promising opportunities to shift the paradigm for conversations at scale and pose distinct risks for digital public squares. We lay out an agenda for future research and investments in AI that will strengthen digital public squares and safeguard against potential misuses of AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    The Illusion of Artificial Inclusion,

    “The Illusion of Artificial Inclusion,” January. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642703.Andrus, M., E. Spitzer, J. Brown, and A. Xiang

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    STaR-GATE: Teaching Language Models to Ask Clarifying Questions

    “STaR-GATE: Teaching Language Models to Ask Clarifying Questions.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19154.Atreja, Shubham, Jane Im, Paul Resnick, and Libby Hemphill

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    AppealMod: Inducing Friction to Reduce Moderator Workload of Handling User Appeals

    “AppealMod: Inducing Friction to Reduce Moderator Workload of Handling User Appeals.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , April. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637296.“Aufstehen Case Study.”

    doi:10.1145/3637296

  4. [7]

    Using Artificial Intelligence to Accelerate Collective Intelligence: Policy Synth and Smarter Crowdsourcing

    “Using Artificial Intelligence to Accelerate Collective Intelligence: Policy Synth and Smarter Crowdsourcing.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13960.Blazina, Carrie

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [10]

    https://compdemocracy.org/Case-studies/2018-kentucky/.Brennan, Jason, and Helene Landemore

    The Computational Democracy Project. https://compdemocracy.org/Case-studies/2018-kentucky/.Brennan, Jason, and Helene Landemore

    work page 2018

  6. [11]

    Civic Signals

    https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/30/generative-ai-in-subsurface-science-and-policy/.“Civic Signals.”

    work page 2024

  7. [13]

    What We Know About Using Non-Engagement Signals in Content Ranking

    “What We Know About Using Non-Engagement Signals in Content Ranking.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06831.Du Bois, W. E. B

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Political Sectarianism in America

    “Political Sectarianism in America.” Science , October. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715.Fishkin, James, Valentin Bolotnyy, Joshua Lerner, Alice Siu, and Norman Bradburn

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abe1715.fishkin

Show all 55 references
  1. [16]

    What Teams Do: Exploring Volunteer Content Moderation Team Labor on Facebook

    “What Teams Do: Exploring Volunteer Content Moderation Team Labor on Facebook.” Social Media + Society . https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186109.Gillespie, Tarleton

    doi

  2. [17]

    A Mixed-Methods Approach to Co-Designing Seabass Regulations

    “A Mixed-Methods Approach to Co-Designing Seabass Regulations.” https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2023/07/25/a-mixed-methods-approach-to-co-designing-seabass-regulations/.Hilbert, Martin

    2023

  3. [18]

    Can Deliberation Reduce Political Misperceptions? Findings from a Deliberative Experiment on Immigration

    “Can Deliberation Reduce Political Misperceptions? Findings from a Deliberative Experiment on Immigration.” Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.392.Hindman, Matthew, Nathaniel Lubin, and Trevor Davis

    doi

  4. [20]

    Content Moderation by LLM: From Accuracy to Legitimacy

    “Content Moderation by LLM: From Accuracy to Legitimacy.” ArXiv . https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2409.03219.Jhaver, Shagun, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman

    arXiv

  5. [22]

    Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?

    “Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , November. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359252.Jhaver, Shagun, Seth Frey, and Amy X. Zhang

    doi

  6. [23]

    Decentralizing Platform Power: A Design Space of Multi-Level Governance in Online Social Platforms

    “Decentralizing Platform Power: A Design Space of Multi-Level Governance in Online Social Platforms.” Social Media + Society , November. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231207857.Jhaver, Shagun, Quan Ze Chen, Detlef Knauss, and Zhang Amy X

    doi

  7. [24]

    Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-Led Comment Moderation

    “Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-Led Comment Moderation.” In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1–21. ACM.Jigsaw

    2022

  8. [25]

    Classifying Constructive Comments

    “Classifying Constructive Comments.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05476.Konya, Andrew, Yeping Lina Qiu, Michael P. Varga, and Aviv Ovadya

    2004 arXiv

  9. [26]

    Democratic Policy Development Using Collective Dialogues and AI

    “Democratic Policy Development Using Collective Dialogues and AI.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02242.Koren, Yehuda, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky

    arXiv

  10. [28]

    Watch Your Language: Investigating Content Moderation with Large Language Models

    “Watch Your Language: Investigating Content Moderation with Large Language Models.” ArXiv . https://arxiv.org/html/2309.14517v2.Kuo, T., A. Hernani, and J. Grossklags

    arXiv

  11. [29]

    The Unsung Heroes of Facebook Groups Moderation: A Case Study of Moderation Practices and Tools

    “The Unsung Heroes of Facebook Groups Moderation: A Case Study of Moderation Practices and Tools.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , April. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579530.Landemore, Hélène. 2022a. “Can AI Bring Deliberative Democracy to the Masses?” HAI S...

    doi

  12. [30]

    PyTorch-BigGraph: A Large-Scale Graph Embedding System

    “PyTorch-BigGraph: A Large-Scale Graph Embedding System.” http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12287. 36 Li, Hanlin, Brent Hecht, and Stevie Chancellor

    1903 arXiv

  13. [31]

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/style/ues-mommas-facebook-group-racism-censorship.html.Marchal, Nahema, Rachel Xu, Rasmi Elasmar, Iason Gabriel, Beth Goldberg, and William Isaac

    2020

  14. [32]

    Generative AI Misuse: A Taxonomy of Tactics and Insights from Real-World Data

    “Generative AI Misuse: A Taxonomy of Tactics and Insights from Real-World Data.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13843.Matasick, Craig

    arXiv

  15. [33]

    Study Results: Reducing the Silencing Role of Harassment in Online Feminism Discussions

    “Study Results: Reducing the Silencing Role of Harassment in Online Feminism Discussions.” CAT Lab. https://citizen- sandtech.org/2020/06/reducing-harassment-impacts-in-feminism-online/.Matias, Nathan J

    2020

  16. [34]

    The Civic Labor of Volunteer Moderators Online

    “The Civic Labor of Volunteer Moderators Online.” Social Media + Society , April. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119836778.“Moderation Strike: Results of Negotiations.”

    doi

  17. [35]

    LLM Intelligent Agent Tutoring in Higher Education Courses Using a RAG Approach,

    “LLM Intelligent Agent Tutoring in Higher Education Courses Using a RAG Approach,” July. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.0519.v1.Morris, M., and J. Brubaker

  18. [36]

    Generative Ghosts: Anticipating Benefits and Risks of AI Afterlives

    “Generative Ghosts: Anticipating Benefits and Risks of AI Afterlives.” Arxiv . https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.01662.Narkhede, Sarang

    arXiv

  19. [37]

    ‘Generative CI’ through Collective Response Systems

    “‘Generative CI’ through Collective Response Systems.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00672.Ovadya, Aviv, and Luke Thorburn

    arXiv

  20. [38]

    Bridging Systems: Open Problems for Countering Destructive Divisiveness across Ranking, Recommenders, and Governance

    “Bridging Systems: Open Problems for Countering Destructive Divisiveness across Ranking, Recommenders, and Governance.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09976.Paice, Andy, and Martin Rausch

    arXiv

  21. [39]

    Vontobel, and R

    https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/20/23767848/reddit-blackout-api-protest-moderators-suspended.Plesner, A., T. Vontobel, and R. Wattenhofer

    2023

  22. [40]

    Breaking reCAPTCHAv2

    “Breaking reCAPTCHAv2.” ArXiv . https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.08831. 37 Rathje, Steve, Jay J. Van Bavel, and Sander van der Linden

    arXiv

  23. [41]

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/facebook-click-gap-google-like-approach-to-stop-fake-news-going-viral.html.Roozenbeek, Jon, and Sander van der Linden

    2019

  24. [42]

    Re-Ranking News Comments by Constructiveness and Curiosity Significantly Increases Perceived Respect, Trustworthiness, and Interest

    “Re-Ranking News Comments by Constructiveness and Curiosity Significantly Increases Perceived Respect, Trustworthiness, and Interest.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05429.Schirch, Lisa

    arXiv

  25. [43]

    Policy Brief. Defending Democracy with Deliberative Technology,

    “Policy Brief. Defending Democracy with Deliberative Technology,” March. https://doi.org/10.7274/25338103.v2.Schirch, Lisa, and David Campt

    doi

  26. [44]

    Why Do Volunteer Content Moderators Quit? Burnout, Conflict, and Harmful Behaviors

    “Why Do Volunteer Content Moderators Quit? Burnout, Conflict, and Harmful Behaviors.” New Media & Society , December. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221138529.Seering, Joseph, Juan Pablo Flores, Saiph Savage, and Jessica Hammer

    doi

  27. [45]

    The Social Roles of Bots

    “The Social Roles of Bots.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , November. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274426.Settle, Jaime E

    doi

  28. [46]

    Polis: Scaling Deliberation by Mapping High Dimensional Opinion Spaces

    “Polis: Scaling Deliberation by Mapping High Dimensional Opinion Spaces.” Recerca. Revista de Pensament I Anàlisi 26 (2). https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.5516.Small, Christopher T., Ivan Vendrov, Esin Durmus, Hadjar Homaei, Elizabeth Barry, Julien Cornebise, Ted Suzman, Deep G...

    doi

  29. [47]

    Opportunities and Risks of LLMs for Scalable Deliberation with Polis

    “Opportunities and Risks of LLMs for Scalable Deliberation with Polis.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11932.Smith, C., S. Klassen, G. Prinster, C. Tan, and B. Keegan

    arXiv

  30. [49]

    How Will Advanced AI Systems Impact Democracy?

    “How Will Advanced AI Systems Impact Democracy?” http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06729.Tang, Audrey, and Glen Weyl

    arXiv

  31. [50]

    AI Can Help Humans Find Common Ground in Democratic Deliberation

    “AI Can Help Humans Find Common Ground in Democratic Deliberation.” Science 386 (6719). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq2852.“Testing New Ways to Offer Viewers More Context and Information on Videos.”

    doi

  32. [51]

    Perceptions of Moderators as a Large-Scale Measure of Online Community Governance

    “Perceptions of Moderators as a Large-Scale Measure of Online Community Governance.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16610.“What Are Zk-SNARKs?”

    arXiv

  33. [52]

    Birdwatch: Crowd Wisdom and Bridging Algorithms Can Inform Understanding and Reduce the Spread of Misinformation

    “Birdwatch: Crowd Wisdom and Bridging Algorithms Can Inform Understanding and Reduce the Spread of Misinformation.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.15723.Woolley, Samuel

    arXiv

  34. [53]

    RECAST: Enabling User Recourse and Interpretability of Toxicity Detection Models with Interactive Visualization

    “RECAST: Enabling User Recourse and Interpretability of Toxicity Detection Models with Interactive Visualization.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , April. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449280.Xu, Rachel, Nhu Le, Rebekah Park, Laura Murray, Vishnupriya Das, Dev...

    doi

  35. [54]

    New Contexts, Old Heuristics: How Young People in India and the US Trust Online Content in the Age of Generative AI

    “New Contexts, Old Heuristics: How Young People in India and the US Trust Online Content in the Age of Generative AI.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02522.Yeomans, M., J. Minson, H. Collins, F. Chen, and F. Gino

    arXiv

  36. [55]

    PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities

    “PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379337.3415858.Zuckerman, Ethan

  37. [2000]

    Bowling Green 2018 Case Study

    Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy . MIT Press.“Bowling Green 2018 Case Study.”

    2018

  38. [2014]

    What Is a Flag for? Social Media Reporting Tools and the 34 Vocabulary of Complaint

    “What Is a Flag for? Social Media Reporting Tools and the 34 Vocabulary of Complaint.” New Media & Society , July. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163.Cunningham, Tom, Sana Pandey, Leif Sigerson, Jonathan Stray, Jeff Allen, Bonnie Barrilleaux, Ravi Iyer, Smitha Milli, Moh...

    doi

  39. [2016]

    Like, Recommend, or Respect? Altering Political Behavior in News Comment Sections

    “Like, Recommend, or Respect? Altering Political Behavior in News Comment Sections.” New Media & Society , April. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816642420.Summerfield, Christopher, Lisa Argyle, Michiel Bakker, Teddy Collins, Esin Durmus, Tyna Eloundou, Iason Gabriel, et al

    doi

  40. [2017]

    Managing Disruptive Behavior through Non-Hierarchical Governance

    “Managing Disruptive Behavior through Non-Hierarchical Governance.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , December. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134697.Kumar, D., Y. AbuHashem, and Z. Durumeric

    doi

  41. [2018]

    https://www.google.com/url?q=https://compdemocracy.org/Case-studies/2018-germany-aufstehen/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1727900606776069&usg=AOvVaw20onW5j8S30DcOvDWYSmaq.Bail, Chris

    2018

  42. [2019]

    Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation

    “Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction: A Publication of the 35 Association for Computing Machinery , July. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338243.Jhaver, Shagun, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert

    doi

  43. [2020]

    http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say-they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions/.Bohman, James

    2020

  44. [2021]

    What We Can’t Measure, We Can't Understand

    “What We Can’t Measure, We Can't Understand.” FAccT ’21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , March. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445888.Andukuri, Chinmaya, Jan-Philipp Fränken, Tobias Gerstenberg, and Noah D. Goodman

    2021

  45. [2022]

    Siddarth, L

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/02/facebook-hate-speech-misinformation-superusers/621617/.Huang, S., D. Siddarth, L. Lovitt, E. Durmis, A. Tamkin, and D. Ganguli

    2022

  46. [2023]

    Generative Social Choice

    “Generative Social Choice.” http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01291.Fung, Archon, and Jennifer Shkabatur

    arXiv

  47. [2024]

    Personhood Credentials: Artificial Intelligence and the Value of Privacy-Preserving Tools to Distinguish Who Is Real Online

    “Personhood Credentials: Artificial Intelligence and the Value of Privacy-Preserving Tools to Distinguish Who Is Real Online.” ArXiv . https://arxiv.org/html/2408.07892v1.Agnew, William, A. Stevie Bergman, Jennifer Chien, Mark Díaz, Seliem El-Sayed, Jaylen Pittman, Shakir Moha...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.