Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Contextualized Counterspeech Can Be More Persuasive Than Generic Counterspeech

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Add the user's history, not fine-tuning, to win with AI counterspeech: a base LLM prompted with conversation context and the toxic user's past comments outperforms generic replies on perceived adequacy and persuasiveness.

desk verdict Systematic, pre-registered comparison of 36 counterspeech configurations; the headline result about lightweight context is plausible but rests on near-zero inter-rater reliability, so the claim needs a mixed-effects reanalysis before it is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26236 v1 pith:TUNKF6MC submitted 2026-07-28 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

Lorenzo Cima , Alessio Miaschi , Amaury Trujillo , Marco Avenuti , Felice Dell'Orletta , Stefano Cresci This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY
keywords CounterspeechPersonalizationContentmoderationLargelanguagemodelsOnlinetoxicityHumanevaluationPersuasionReddit
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 claims that how you give context to an LLM matters more than how much you fine-tune it. Specifically, feeding the model the preceding conversation and the toxic user's recent comments at inference time improves the perceived adequacy and persuasiveness of the counterspeech over a generic baseline, whereas fine-tuning on counterspeech or Reddit datasets often degrades quality and can produce toxic or unframed outputs. This matters because content moderation at scale needs interventions that people actually find persuasive, and the finding suggests a lightweight, safer path than heavy fine-tuning. The paper also documents that automatic metrics (ROUGE/BLEU/BERTScore) rank configurations nearly opposite to human judgment, so evaluation of counterspeech systems needs human involvement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is 'lightweight contextual prompting' of the base model: the input prompt is augmented with (i) the two messages preceding the toxic comment in the thread and (ii) ten comments from the toxic user's history, while the model weights remain untouched. This is contrasted with fine-tuning on counterspeech datasets (MultiCONAN, RHSI) or community comments (political subreddits). The argument is carried by comparing 36 configurations across algorithmic indicators and a pre-registered crowdsourced human evaluation, with the [Ba Pr Hi] versus [Ba] contrast as the pivotal result.

What would settle it

A field experiment on a real platform: deploy [Ba Pr Hi] and [Ba] counterspeech to users who posted toxic comments (matched design), and measure subsequent comment toxicity, deletion, or engagement. If [Ba Pr Hi] does not outperform [Ba] on actual behavioral outcomes, the central claim—that contextualized counterspeech is more persuasive—would be falsified for real-world persuasion. Alternatively, a re-analysis of the crowdsourced data using a model with rater-level random effects could show whether the configuration effect survives when accounting for rater idiosyncrasies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a base instruction-tuned LLaMA2-13B model prompted with up to two preceding conversation messages and ten of the toxic user's previous Reddit comments (configuration [Ba Pr Hi]) significantly outperforms the generic baseline [Ba] on perceived adequacy and perceived persuasiveness toward the toxic author, with consistent gains on relevance, truthfulness, and bystander persuasion. The paper further shows that this improvement is specific to supplying context at inference time: configurations that add the same information via fine-tuning, e.g., [Mu Re Pr Hi], fail dramatically, with 90.6% of outputs lacking any moderation framing and 8.6%

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that average Likert ratings from crowdworkers, despite near-zero inter-rater agreement (Krippendorff's alpha around 0.002–0.008), capture a meaningful shared signal of counterspeech adequacy and persuasiveness; if those ratings are mostly idiosyncratic noise, the configuration-level comparisons lose their footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If true, moderation systems can improve counterspeech simply by feeding conversation context and user history into a generic instruction-tuned model, avoiding expensive and risky fine-tuning.
  • Fine-tuning on counterspeech or community data should be treated as a potential failure source; the choice of corpus determines which aspect of the moderation function is lost.
  • The negative correlation between automatic metrics and human judgments means algorithmic screening alone can mislead: a configuration can rank among the best under metrics yet among the worst for humans.
  • The register of a moderation act (imperative mood, normative appeals) strongly predicts human adequacy ratings, suggesting future systems should explicitly enforce this register.
  • Effective counterspeech may need to vary by toxicity subtype and emotional tone: anger hurts persuasiveness, while trust and anticipation help.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The very low inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff's alpha around 0.004) raises the possibility that the reported configuration-level differences reflect shared rating patterns rather than a stable property of the messages; a re-analysis with alternative aggregation or rater-level modeling could either reinforce or dissolve the headline effect.
  • The paper measures perceived persuasiveness from third-party raters, not actual behavior change. A direct field experiment sending real counterspeech to toxic users and measuring subsequent toxicity or re-engagement would be the natural test of whether perceived persuasiveness translates to real-world persuasion.
  • The finding that older raters systematically give lower scores suggests that the demographic composition of crowdsourcing samples could tilt conclusions; future studies should preregister demographic weighting or stratified sampling.
  • The success of [Ba Pr Hi] may not generalize to other base models or domains; the appendix's robustness check with another LLM shows model-dependent differences, so the mechanism may be specific to instruction-tuned models rather than universal.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes and evaluates configurations for contextualized/personalized counterspeech generation using LLaMA2-13B, varying fine-tuning corpora (MultiCONAN, RHSI, Reddit), community adaptation, conversation prefix, user-history, and user-summary factors (36 factorial but not fully crossed). Algorithmic indicators and a pre-registered crowdsourcing study (N=2,444 non-contextual, N=2,353 contextual) compare seven selected configurations against the generic baseline [Ba]. The headline finding is that [Ba Pr Hi] (base model with conversation context and user's comment history) is rated significantly better than [Ba] in adequacy and perceived persuasiveness toward the toxic author, while many fine-tuned and/or more heavily contextualized configurations degrade perceived quality. The paper also reports that automatic metrics (ROUGE/BLEU/BERTScore) rank configurations essentially opposite to human ratings, and presents a failure-mode analysis showing fine-tuning produces unframed/toxic/register-shifted outputs.

Significance. The study is valuable for its systematic factorial design, pre-registered protocol, large participant pool, open models, and the split between algorithmic and human evaluation. If the human-rating result survives the reliability concerns, the finding that lightweight inference-time contextualization (without fine-tuning) improves perceived counterspeech quality—and that fine-tuning on counter-narrative corpora can destroy the moderation register—is an actionable, non-obvious result for the moderation community. The negative correlation between automatic indicators and human judgments is a useful cautionary result, and the failure-mode analysis (unframed, toxic, degenerate) is a concrete step toward functional evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2, Appendix Table 5, §4.2.4] The central claim rests entirely on crowdworkers' Likert ratings. The manuscript's own reliability statistics show near-zero inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff's α=0.002–0.008; mean pairwise Spearman=0.002–0.005; pairwise agreement≈0.29). Although low α can coexist with stable aggregate means, it places the burden on the analysis to show that configuration-level differences reflect a shared perception rather than rater-specific scale use or noise. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests in §4.2.4 operate on raw scores and do not include random effects for participants or items; with N≈2,400 and 7 configurations even small idiosyncratic tendencies can reach significance. I request a re-analysis with cumulative-link mixed models containing random intercepts for participants and for toxic-message instances (or threads), reporting the [Ba Pr Hi] vs [Ba] contrasts for adequacy and the two persuasi
  2. [Fig. 3, §6.2.1] The significance legend uses '*: p<0.1' as a significance level, while the text describes [Ba Pr Hi] as 'significantly better' on adequacy and persuasiveness-to-author. The paper states that a Bonferroni correction was applied but does not report the number of comparisons or the adjusted threshold, nor exact p-values. If these findings are significant only at the uncorrected or p<0.1 level, the abstract's claim is overstated. Please provide a full contrast table with test statistic, raw p, adjusted p, and effect size with confidence interval for each dimension and each configuration, and use a uniform α=0.05 threshold or clearly label p<0.1 results as marginal.
  3. [§5, §6.2.4, Table 3, title/abstract] The evidence base is narrow: 128 toxic comments, 85 from r/politics, predominantly obscene/insulting subtypes; the outcome is third-party perceived persuasiveness, not actual behavior change. The authors acknowledge these limitations in the Discussion and Limitations section, but the title and abstract state 'contextualized counterspeech can be more persuasive than generic counterspeech' without those qualifiers. Please temper the abstract and title to 'perceived persuasiveness in U.S. political Reddit threads' or otherwise bound the claim, since the current phrasing over-generalizes beyond the demonstrated scope.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.3] The text says 'computed over all 6,912 generations,' but §5 reports 36 configurations × 128 toxic messages = 4,608 generated responses. Please reconcile or clarify where 6,912 comes from (e.g., additional LLM robustness runs).
  2. [Appendix Table 5] The caption states that statistics are reported separately for the non-contextual condition, the contextual condition, and both conditions pooled together, but the table as shown has only one row per question with no condition split. Please include the condition breakdown or correct the caption.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] Using '*' for p<0.1 alongside '**' for p<0.05 is unusual and easily misread. If retained, explicitly state in the caption that '*' is nominal and whether any multiple-comparison correction is applied.
  4. [§8, §9] Typographical issues: 'pre-registreted' in §8, and 'the the PNRR' in the Acknowledgments. Also, the super-ranking optimization in §4.2.2 is described only verbally; a formal statement of the minimized objective would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline claim rests on pre-registered human judgments, and the paper explicitly shows algorithmic indicators rank configurations opposite to humans.

full rationale

The central claim—that [Ba Pr Hi] improves perceived adequacy and persuasiveness over [Ba]—is an empirical result from a pre-registered crowdsourcing experiment (Section 4.2.3, Section 6.2.1), not a quantity derived from the model or from fitted indicators. The paper's own comparison in Section 6.2.3 shows algorithmic rankings are negatively correlated with human rankings (Kendall τ from -0.05 to -0.71), which is the opposite of fitting the outcome into the metric. The configuration-selection pipeline uses algorithmic indicators only to choose representative configurations and, as the paper acknowledges in Section 7, this may exclude human-preferred outputs; it does not define the evaluated outcome. The low inter-rater reliability reported in Appendix Table 5 (Krippendorff's α ≈ 0.002–0.008) and the comment that non-parametric tests do not jointly model participant- and stimulus-level variability (Section 7) are measurement-validity limitations, not circularity: ratings are external to the generation process. Self-citations such as [17] introduce prior strategies and background, but they are not load-bearing for the persuasion claim, which is measured de novo. No equation or fitted parameter reduces to the target result by construction, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or ontological entities. The novel constructs (e.g., the 'unframed' indicator and the user-summary artifact) are operational definitions or pipeline artifacts, not independent postulated entities; the 'unframed' indicator is validated against human adequacy ratings in Appendix D.5.

free parameters (7)
  • Toxicity threshold (Perspective API) = 0.5
    Used to select the 128 toxic benchmark comments (§5) and to label toxic generations (§6.3); chosen from prior literature, not fitted.
  • Minimum user activity for personalization = 20 comments
    Inclusion criterion that reduced the benchmark from 292 to 128 toxic comments (§5); hand-chosen.
  • Comment-history window (Hi) = 10 comments
    Number of prior user comments prepended to the prompt in §4.1.2; hand-chosen, not optimized.
  • Summary window (Su) = 20 comments
    Number of prior user comments distilled into a summary in §4.1.2; hand-chosen, not optimized.
  • Centroid-selection sample size = 20 messages per configuration
    Messages closest to each configuration's centroid in indicator space were submitted to human evaluation (§4.2.2); this excludes extreme/toxic outputs, as the authors acknowledge in §6.3.
  • Reddit fine-tuning dataset size = ≈7,500 (§4.1.1) vs ≈5K (Appendix A)
    Inconsistent reported size of comment-reply pairs used for community adaptation fine-tuning; hand-chosen sample with no documented seed.
  • Power-analysis target = ≈2,500 participants per condition; achieved N ≈ 2,444 / 2,353
    Sample size target for detecting Cohen's d = 0.2 with 85% power at 95% confidence (§4.2.5); achieved numbers differ slightly from the round target.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Crowdworkers' five-point Likert ratings operationalize relevance, adequacy, truthfulness, artificiality, and persuasiveness.
    Used throughout §4.2.3 and §6.2; Appendix Table 5 shows near-zero Krippendorff's alpha and Spearman rho, so ratings are noisy even if pairwise agreement is moderate.
  • domain assumption Perspective API scores with threshold ≥ 0.5 identify toxic comments and toxic outputs.
    Used in §5 to build the benchmark and in §6.3 to label failures; threshold taken from prior literature [52, 70].
  • domain assumption ROUGE/BLEU/BERTScore overlap operationalize relevance, diversity, adaptation, and lexical personalization.
    §4.2.1 defines indicators this way; §6.2.3 shows these metrics are negatively correlated with human judgments, so this assumption is known to be partially false; it also drives configuration selection (§4.2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The twenty messages closest to each configuration's centroid in indicator space are representative of that configuration.
    §4.2.2; this selection excludes the most toxic outputs (max toxicity of evaluated messages 0.41 vs 3.1-13.3% in full pools), so human evaluation covers a cleaner subset; authors acknowledge and label results conservative.
  • standard math Nonparametric significance tests (Friedman, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U) with Bonferroni correction are valid for ordinal Likert responses.
    §4.2.4; standard choices, though they do not jointly model participant- and stimulus-level variance, as acknowledged in §7.
  • domain assumption A single generation per toxic message is enough to characterize each configuration.
    §5 generates one output per configuration per toxic message; acknowledged in §7 as a limitation.
  • domain assumption LLaMA2-13B instruction-tuned model follows the prompts and uses supplied context as intended.
    §4.1 generation; prompt compliance is not independently verified; failure-mode analysis suggests context is often ignored or misused, e.g., unframed outputs.
  • domain assumption User summaries generated by LLaMA2 do not infer sensitive or protected attributes.
    §4.1.2 prompt instructs the model not to infer age, gender, or other personal information; no audit verifies this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contextualized Counterspeech Can Be More Persuasive Than Generic Counterspeech." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUNKF6MC

@misc{pith2026260726236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contextualized Counterspeech Can Be More Persuasive Than Generic Counterspeech},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUNKF6MC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26236}
}
read the original abstract

AI-generated counterspeech offers a scalable and effective strategy to mitigate online toxicity by promoting more constructive dialogue. Yet, existing approaches adopt a generic, one-size-fits-all paradigm, overlooking the conversational context and characteristics of the targeted users. Here, we propose and evaluate multiple strategies for generating contextualized counterspeech that is adapted to the moderation setting and personalized to the moderated user. In detail, we explore a range of configurations that integrate different forms of contextual information and fine-tuning techniques. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation combining quantitative indicators with a pre-registered, mixed-design crowdsourcing experiment. To ensure robustness, we implement algorithmic measures of counterspeech quality based on ROUGE, BLEU, and BERTScore, observing overall consistent results across metrics. Furthermore, we analyze which characteristics of both the generated counterspeech and the moderated toxic message most strongly influence perceived persuasiveness, yielding insights into how contextualized interventions can be made more effective. Our findings show that personalization can be effective, but not uniformly so. Lightweight strategies combining conversational context and user history improve perceived adequacy and persuasiveness, whereas several other contextualization strategies degrade human-perceived counterspeech quality. Taken together, these results provide actionable directions for developing more personalized, effective, and responsible counterspeech systems, ultimately advancing human-AI collaboration in online content moderation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Current AI-generated counterspeech primarily relies on the content of the toxic message alone. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Linear and rank correlations (y axis) between four algorithmic indicators (x axis) when computed with different text similarity metrics: ROUGE (RG), BLEU (BL), and BERTScore (BS). low 𝛼 and correlation values, indicating limited consistency in annotators’ relative judgments, but moderate pairwise agreement and low normalized match distance, reflecting that ratings are often concentrated in a narrow range around the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Human evaluation results in terms of effect sizes (blue dots) and confidence intervals (black bars) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differences in human evaluation results between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rank correlation coefficients for the se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of toxicity subtypes in toxic messages and the generated counterspeech (left-side panel) and persuasiveness of the counterspeech with respect to the subtypes of toxic speech in the toxic message (right-side panels). anger anticipationdisgust fear joy sadne…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of emotions subtypes in toxic messages and the generated counterspeech (left-side panel) and persuasiveness of the counterspeech with respect to the dominant emotion of the counterspeech message (right-side panels). Types of toxicity. In addition to the ov…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relationship between respondents’ age and their judgments: persuasiveness with respect to the toxic user (left panel), persuasiveness with respect to the conversation (middle panel), and artificiality of the counterspeech (right panel). Panels also report Pearson corre…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Toxicity distributions for the fine-tuning datasets. B Prompts This section reports the LLM prompts that we used to generate counterspeech responses and user summaries for the different factors described in Section 4.1: • Default counterspeech generation: "You are a m…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants in our crowdsourcing experiment, separately for the non-contextual and contextual evaluation tasks. D.3 Socio-demographic questions The following questions were asked once for each participant, at the end of the qu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Algorithmic indicator values averaged by configuration and large language model (LLM), either LLaMA2-13B or Qwen3-8B. Each dot represents one of the 36 configurations. Lines connecting configuration dots show average change across LLMs. The median (m) value per indica…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Persuasiveness of the counterspeech with respect to the dominant emotion of the toxic message [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ana Aleksandric, Sayak Saha Roy, Hanani Pankaj, Gabriela Mustata Wilson, and Shirin Nilizadeh. 2024. Users’ behavioral and emotional response to toxicity in Twitter conversations. InAAAI ICWSM

    2024

  2. [2]

    Anirban Saha Anik, Xiaoying Song, Elliott Wang, Bryan Wang, Bengisu Yarimbas, and Lingzi Hong. 2025. Multi-Agent Retrieval-Augmented Framework for Evidence-Based Counterspeech Against Health Misinformation. InCOLM

    2025

  3. [3]

    Jason Baumgartner, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2020. The pushshift Reddit dataset. InAAAI ICWSM

    2020

  4. [4]

    Tilman Beck, Hendrik Schuff, Anne Lauscher, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. Sensitivity, performance, robustness: Deconstructing the effect of sociodemographic prompting. InEACL

    2024

  5. [5]

    Helena Bonaldi, Yi-Ling Chung, Gavin Abercrombie, and Marco Guerini. 2024. NLP for counterspeech against hate: A survey and how-to guide. InNAACL

    2024

  6. [6]

    Angana Borah, Rada Mihalcea, and Verónica Pérez-Rosas. 2026. Persuasion at play: Understanding misinformation dynamics in demographic-aware human-LLM interactions. InEACL

    2026

  7. [7]

    Nimet Beyza Bozdag, Shuhaib Mehri, Gokhan Tur, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2026. Persuade me if you can: A framework for evaluating persuasion effectiveness and susceptibility among large language models. InACM CAIS

    2026

  8. [8]

    Simon Martin Breum, Daniel Vædele Egdal, Victor Gram Mortensen, Anders Giovanni Møller, and Luca Maria Aiello

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Dominique Brunato, Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta, Giulia Venturi, and Simonetta Montemagni. 2020. Profiling-UD: A tool for linguistic profiling of texts. InLREC

    2020

  2. [10]

    Dominik Bär, Abdurahman Maarouf, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2024. Generative AI may backfire for counterspeech. arXiv:2411.14986(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aldo Cerulli, Lorenzo Cima, Benedetta Tessa, Serena Tardelli, and Stefano Cresci. 2026. The Big Ban Theory: A pre-and post-intervention dataset of online content moderation actions. InAAAI ICWSM

    2026

  4. [12]

    Aldo Cerulli, Benedetta Tessa, Giuseppe La Selva, Oronzo Mazzeo, Lorenzo Cima, Lucia Monacis, and Stefano Cresci

  5. [13]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2022. Quarantined! Examining the effects of a community-wide moderation intervention on Reddit.ACM TOCHI29, 4 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Hyundong Cho, Shuai Liu, Taiwei Shi, Darpan Jain, Basem Rizk, Yuyang Huang, Zixun Lu, Nuan Wen, Jonathan Gratch, Emilio Ferrara, and Jonathan May. 2024. Can language model moderators improve the health of online discourse? NAACL(2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Yi-Ling Chung, Gavin Abercrombie, Florence Enock, Jonathan Bright, and Verena Rieser. 2024. Understanding Counterspeech for Online Harm Mitigation.Northern European Journal of Language Technology10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Yi-Ling Chung, Serra Sinem Tekiroğlu, and Marco Guerini. 2021. Towards knowledge-grounded counter narrative generation for hate speech. InACL-IJCNLP

    2021

  9. [17]

    Lorenzo Cima, Alessio Miaschi, Amaury Trujillo, Marco Avvenuti, Felice Dell’Orletta, and Stefano Cresci. 2025. Contextualized counterspeech: Strategies for adaptation, personalization, and evaluation. InACM WWW

    2025

  10. [18]

    Lorenzo Cima, Benedetta Tessa, Amaury Trujillo, Stefano Cresci, and Marco Avvenuti. 2025. Investigating the heterogeneous effects of a massive content moderation intervention via Difference-in-Differences.Online Social Networks and Media48 (2025), 100320

    2025

  11. [19]

    Jordi Guillem Condom Tibau, Angelina Voggenreiter, Jürgen Pfeffer, et al. 2025. Prevalence, Substance and Responses to Hate Speech Against LGBTQ Communities on TikTok. InAAAI ICWSM

    2025

  12. [20]

    Thomas H Costello, Gordon Pennycook, and David G Rand. 2024. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI.Science385 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2014. A criticism to society (as seen by Twitter analytics). InIEEE ICDCS Workshops

    2014

  14. [22]

    Stefano Cresci, Amaury Trujillo, and Tiziano Fagni. 2022. Personalized interventions for online moderation. InACM Hypertext

    2022

  15. [23]

    Francisco Cribari-Neto and Achim Zeileis. 2010. Beta regression in R.Journal of statistical software34 (2010), 1–24

    2010

  16. [24]

    Mekselina Doğanç and Ilia Markov. 2023. From generic to personalized: Investigating strategies for generating targeted counter narratives against hate speech. InACL CS4OA

    2023

  17. [25]

    Cynthia Dwork, Chris Hays, Jon Kleinberg, and Manish Raghavan. 2024. Content moderation and the formation of online communities: A theoretical framework. InACM WWW

    2024

  18. [26]

    Margherita Fanton, Helena Bonaldi, Serra Sinem Tekiroğlu, and Marco Guerini. 2021. Human-in-the-Loop for data collection: A multi-target counter narrative dataset to fight online hate speech. InACL-IJCNLP

    2021

  19. [27]

    Kazuaki Furumai, Roberto Legaspi, Julio Vizcarra, Yudai Yamazaki, Yasutaka Nishimura, Sina J Semnani, Kazushi Ikeda, Weiyan Shi, and Monica S Lam. 2024. Zero-shot persuasive chatbots with LLM-generated strategies and information , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: Jul...

    2024

  20. [28]

    John D Gallacher, Marc W Heerdink, and Miles Hewstone. 2021. Online engagement between opposing political protest groups via social media is linked to physical violence of offline encounters.Social Media + Society7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Joshua Garland, Keyan Ghazi-Zahedi, Jean-Gabriel Young, Laurent Hébert-Dufresne, and Mirta Galesic. 2022. Impact and dynamics of hate and counter speech online.EPJ Data Science11, 1 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Gloria Gennaro, Laurenz Derksen, Aya Abdelrahman, Emma Broggini, Mariya Alexandra Green, Victoria Andrea Haerter, Elia Heer, Isabel Heidler, Fiona Kauer, Han-Nuri Kim, et al. 2025. Counterspeech encouraging users to adopt the perspective of minority groups reduces hate speech ...

    2025

  23. [31]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2020. Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale.Big Data & Society7, 2 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tommaso Giorgi, Lorenzo Cima, Tiziano Fagni, Marco Avvenuti, and Stefano Cresci. 2025. Human and LLM biases in hate speech annotations: A socio-demographic analysis of annotators and targets.AAAI ICWSM(2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Natasha Goel, Thomas Bergeron, Blake Lee-Whiting, Thomas Galipeau, Danielle Bohonos, Sarah Lachance, Sonja Savolainen, Clareta Treger, and Eric Merkley. 2024. Artificial influence? Comparing AI and human persuasion in reducing belief certainty. (2024). https://doi.org/10.31219...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Pierpaolo Goffredo, Valerio Basile, Bianca Cepollaro, Viviana Patti, et al. 2022. Counter-TWIT: An Italian corpus for online counterspeech in ecological contexts. InACL WOAH

    2022

  27. [35]

    Josh A Goldstein, Jason Chao, Shelby Grossman, Alex Stamos, and Michael Tomz. 2024. How persuasive is AI-generated propaganda?PNAS Nexus3, 2 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Jarod Govers, Eduardo Velloso, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2024. AI-Driven Mediation Strategies for Audience Depolarisation in Online Debates. InACM CHI

    2024

  29. [37]

    Kobi Hackenburg and Helen Margetts. 2024. Evaluating the persuasive influence of political microtargeting with large language models.PNAS121, 24 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kobi Hackenburg, Ben M Tappin, Paul Röttger, Scott A Hale, Jonathan Bright, and Helen Margetts. 2025. Scaling language model size yields diminishing returns for single-message political persuasion.PNAS122, 10 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Sadaf MD Halim, Saquib Irtiza, Yibo Hu, Latifur Khan, and Bhavani Thuraisingham. 2023. WokeGPT: Improving counterspeech generation against online hate speech by intelligently augmenting datasets using a novel metric. In IEEE IJCNN

    2023

  32. [40]

    Sabit Hassan and Malihe Alikhani. 2023. DisCGen: A framework for discourse-informed counterspeech generation. In IJCNLP-AACL

    2023

  33. [41]

    Bing He, Mustaque Ahamad, and Srijan Kumar. 2023. Reinforcement learning-based counter-misinformation response generation: A case study of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. InACM WWW

    2023

  34. [42]

    Amey Hengle, Aswini Kumar Padhi, Anil Bandhakavi, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2025. CSEval: Towards Automated, Multi-Dimensional, and Reference-Free Counterspeech Evaluation using Auto-Calibrated LLMs. InNAACL

    2025

  35. [43]

    Daniel Hickey, Daniel MT Fessler, Matheus Schmitz, Paul Smaldino, Kristina Lerman, Goran Murić, and Keith Burghardt

  36. [44]

    Lingzi Hong, Pengcheng Luo, Eduardo Blanco, and Xiaoying Song. 2024. Outcome-constrained large language models for countering hate speech.EMNLP(2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Shagun Jhaver, Savvas Zannettou, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Emiliano De Cristofaro, and Robert West. 2021. Do platform migrations compromise content moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels. InACM CSCW

    2021

  38. [46]

    InAAAI ICWSM

    Assessing How Hate, Counterspeech, and Toxicity Affect Hate Group Newcomers. InAAAI ICWSM

  39. [47]

    Hang Jiang, Xiajie Zhang, Xubo Cao, Cynthia Breazeal, Deb Roy, and Jad Kabbara. 2024. PersonaLLM: Investigating the ability of large language models to express personality traits.NAACL(2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Shuyu Jiang, Wenyi Tang, Xingshu Chen, Rui Tang, Haizhou Wang, and Wenxian Wang. 2025. ReZG: Retrieval- augmented zero-shot counter narrative generation for hate speech.Neurocomputing620 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Evey Jiaxin Huang, Abhraneel Sarma, Sohyeon Hwang, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Stevie Chancellor. 2024. Opportunities, tensions, and challenges in computational approaches to addressing online harassment. InACM DIS

    2024

  42. [50]

    Shirish Karande, V Santhosh, and Yash Bhatia. 2024. Persuasion games with large language models. InACL ICON

    2024

  43. [51]

    Aswini Kumar, Anil Bandhakavi, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2025. Counterspeech the ultimate shield! Multi-Conditioned Counterspeech Generation through Attributed Prefix Learning. InACL

    2025

  44. [52]

    Cameron Jones and Benjamin Bergen. 2026. Lies, damned lies, and language statistics: a comprehensive review of risks from manipulation, persuasion, and deception with large language models.Artificial Intelligence Review59, 4 (2026), 116

    2026

  45. [53]

    Rohan Leekha, Olga Simek, and Charlie Dagli. 2024. War of Words: Harnessing the Potential of Large Language Models and Retrieval Augmented Generation to Classify, Counter and Diffuse Hate Speech. InAAAI FLAIRS. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: July 2026. Contextual...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Alyssa Lees, Vinh Q Tran, Yi Tay, Jeffrey Sorensen, Jai Gupta, Donald Metzler, and Lucy Vasserman. 2022. A new generation of perspective API: Efficient multilingual character-level transformers. InACM KDD

    2022

  47. [55]

    Nihal Kumarswamy, Mohit Singhal, and Shirin Nilizadeh. 2025. Causal Insights into Parler’s Content Moderation Shift: Effects on Toxicity and Factuality. InACM WWW

    2025

  48. [56]

    Mikel K Ngueajio, Flor Miriam Plaza-del Arco, Yi-Ling Chung, Danda B Rawat, and Amanda Cercas Curry. 2025. Think Like a Person Before Responding: A Multi-Faceted Evaluation of Persona-Guided LLMs for Countering Hate. InACL WOAH

    2025

  49. [57]

    Amalie Brogaard Pauli, Isabelle Augenstein, and Ira Assent. 2024. Measuring and Benchmarking Large Language Models’ Capabilities to Generate Persuasive Language. InNAACL

    2024

  50. [58]

    Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Pre-trained language models for text generation: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys56, 9 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Jing Qian, Anna Bethke, Yinyin Liu, Elizabeth Belding, and William Yang Wang. 2019. A benchmark dataset for learning to intervene in online hate speech. InEMNLP-IJCNLP

    2019

  52. [60]

    Emanuele Ricco, Elia Onofri, Lorenzo Cima, Stefano Cresci, and Roberto Di Pietro. 2026. A Geometric Analysis of Small-sized Language Model Hallucinations. InForty-third International Conference on Machine Learning

    2026

  53. [61]

    Yujin Potter, Shiyang Lai, Junsol Kim, James Evans, and Dawn Song. 2024. Hidden Persuaders: LLMs’ Political Leaning and Their Influence on Voters. InACL EMNLP

    2024

  54. [62]

    Francesco Salvi, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Riccardo Gallotti, and Robert West. 2025. On the conversational persuasiveness of GPT-4.Nature Human Behaviour9, 8 (2025), 1645–1653

    2025

  55. [63]

    Gautam Kishore Shahi, Benedetta Tessa, Amaury Trujillo, and Stefano Cresci. 2025. A Year of the DSA Transparency Database: What it (Does Not) Reveal About Platform Moderation During the 2024 European Parliament Election. In ICWSM Workshops

    2025

  56. [64]

    Punyajoy Saha, Kanishk Singh, Adarsh Kumar, Binny Mathew, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2022. CounterGeDi: A controllable approach to generate polite, detoxified and emotional counterspeech. InIJCAI

    2022

  57. [65]

    Miriah Steiger, Timir J Bharucha, Sukrit Venkatagiri, Martin J Riedl, and Matthew Lease. 2021. The psychological well-being of content moderators: The emotional labor of commercial moderation and avenues for improving support. InACM CHI

    2021

  58. [66]

    Madiha Tabassum, Alana Mackey, Ashley Schuett, and Ada Lerner. 2024. Investigating moderation challenges to combating hate and harassment: The case of Mod-Admin power dynamics and feature misuse on Reddit. InUSENIX

    2024

  59. [67]

    Xiaoying Song, Sujana Mamidisetty, Eduardo Blanco, and Lingzi Hong. 2025. Assessing the human likeness of AI-generated counterspeech. InACL COLING

    2025

  60. [68]

    Serra Sinem Tekiroğlu, Yi-Ling Chung, and Marco Guerini. 2020. Generating counter narratives against online hate speech: Data and strategies. InACL

    2020

  61. [69]

    Benedetta Tessa, Lorenzo Cima, Amaury Trujillo, Marco Avvenuti, and Stefano Cresci. 2025. Beyond trial-and-error: Predicting user abandonment after a moderation intervention.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence162 (2025), 112375

    2025

  62. [70]

    Serra Sinem Tekiroglu, Helena Bonaldi, Margherita Fanton, and Marco Guerini. 2022. Using pre-trained language models for producing counter narratives against hate speech: A comparative study. InACL

    2022

  63. [71]

    Amaury Trujillo and Stefano Cresci. 2023. One of many: Assessing user-level effects of moderation interventions on r/The_Donald. InACM WebSci

    2023

  64. [72]

    Amaury Trujillo, Tiziano Fagni, and Stefano Cresci. 2025. The DSA Transparency Database: Auditing self-reported moderation actions by social media. InACM CSCW

    2025

  65. [73]

    Amaury Trujillo and Stefano Cresci. 2022. Make Reddit Great Again: Assessing community effects of moderation interventions on r/The_Donald. InACM CSCW

    2022

  66. [74]

    Xinchen Yu, Eduardo Blanco, and Lingzi Hong. 2024. Hate cannot drive out hate: Forecasting conversation incivility following replies to hate speech. InAAAI ICWSM

    2024

  67. [75]

    Yi Zheng, Björn Ross, and Walid Magdy. 2026. Validating Automatic Evaluation of Controllable Counterspeech Generation: Rankings Matter More Than Scores. InEACL

    2026

  68. [76]

    Haiyang Wang, Yuchen Pan, Xin Song, Xuechen Zhao, Minghao Hu, and Bin Zhou. 2024. F2rl: Factuality and faithfulness reinforcement learning framework for claim-guided evidence-supported counterspeech generation. InACL EMNLP

    2024

  69. [77]

    Irune Zubiaga, Aitor Soroa, and Rodrigo Agerri. 2024. A LLM-based ranking method for the evaluation of automatic counter-narrative generation. InACL EMNLP

    2024

  70. [78]

    Aneta Zugecova, Dominik Macko, Ivan Srba, Robert Moro, Jakub Kopal, Katarina Marcincinova, and Matus Mesarcik

  71. [79]

    Nawaal Zubair, Shazia Hashmat, and Ume Aimen. 2025. Artificial Intelligence and the Generational Divide: A Study on Trust and Acceptance.Annual Methodological Archive Research Review3, 6 (2025), 19–44

    2025

  72. [2024]

    InAAAI ICWSM

    The persuasive power of large language models. InAAAI ICWSM

  73. [2025]

    You are a moderator of a subreddit and you come across a comment that exhibits hate speech. Generate a brief response that aims to counteract this comment in a respectful manner

    Evaluation of LLM vulnerabilities to being misused for personalized disinformation generation. InACL. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: July 2026. 26 Cima et al. Appendix A Dataset For counterspeech generation, we retrieved 128 toxic comments from 49 Reddit threads....

    2026

  74. [2026]

    Dark personality traits and online toxicity: Linking self-reports to reddit activity.Computers in Human Behavior (2026), 109085

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.