Research on gender-related online content is often operationalized through harm-centered tasks that collapse non-harmful gender-related and unrelated content, while existing datasets remain concentrated in high-resource languages and Global North settings. To bridge these gaps, we introduce GENDIS, a dataset of 9,600 multilingual, human-annotated YouTube comments from India, Kenya, and Nigeria (3,200 per country), annotated using a two-level framework that first identifies whether gender is referenced and then classifies gender-related content as negative, positive, or neutral. This separation provides a denominator for gender-related discourse independent of harm, enabling both prevalence estimation and characterization of its evaluative range. In the uniform random stratum, 23.8-35.0% of comments are gender-related, and among those with a resolved stance, 82% are neutral or positive. Across models, gender-reference detection is substantially easier than stance classification, especially for positive and neutral speech. Lightly supervised classifiers match frontier zero-shot large language models at substantially lower cost and outperform generic toxicity detection, while cross-country transfer remains limited. GENDIS provides a locally grounded resource for measuring when gender is invoked online and how that reference is framed.

Russian state propaganda spreads across many languages and online spaces. Yet, most computational work examines only one such space, usually social media, in one or two languages, and analyses sources rather than content. We introduce SWARM (Search-Web documents Annotated for Russian propaganda, Multilingual), a dataset of 2,183 search engine results across nine languages and diverse web domains (e.g., news, blogs, government sites), each annotated by trained coders for whether it supports a recurring Russian propaganda narrative. We benchmark a source-based blocklist, supervised classifiers, and zero-shot LLMs against these labels. The blocklist misses most propaganda-supporting documents, because such content is not confined to flagged "propaganda" outlets but also appears on mainstream ones. Content-level analysis helps, though how much depends on the model: the strongest LLM reaches a positive-class F1 of 0.73, whereas the supervised classifiers reach only about 0.5, with the smaller LLMs over-predicting support, mistaking topical relevance for endorsement. Detecting search-borne propaganda thus requires per-language, content-level evaluation, which we hope SWARM and our evaluation code enable.

Perspective API closes at the end of 2026, removing the de facto standard for toxicity measurement and exposing researchers’ dependence on a tool they did not control. Drawing on this case, we argue that a research field must build and govern its own measurement infrastructure rather than borrow it. Surveying 241 papers that use or study Perspective, we show what depending on it cost the research community: claims reaching past what the tool could support, results that shifted when its model was silently retrained, and disparities researchers could measure but not explain. These failures were amplified throughout the LLM lifecycle, where Perspective supplied the labels, filtered the corpora, and graded the systems trained on each, rewarding errors rather than catching them. To keep the instrument open to study after shutdown, we release Perspective scores for 5.9 million text snippets from 77 datasets. We further specify ten requirements for measurement infrastructure a field owns, and argue that what blocks such infrastructure is not technical capability but the value the field places on infrastructure work.

Demographic cue-based evaluation is widely used to study how large language models (LLMs) adapt their responses to signaled demographic attributes within and across groups. This approach typically relies on a single cue (e.g., names) as a proxy for group membership, implicitly treating different cues as interchangeable operationalizations of a single underlying identity-conditioned behavior. We test this assumption in realistic advice-seeking interactions spanning 14.8 million prompts, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. We find that cues for the same group induce only partially overlapping changes in model responses, yielding inconsistent conclusions about personalization, while bias conclusions are unstable, with both magnitude and direction of group differences varying across cues. We further show that these inconsistencies reflect differences in cue–group association strength and linguistic features bundled within cues that shape model responses. Together, our findings suggest that demographic conditioning in LLMs is not a cue-invariant category-level parameter but depends fundamentally on how identity is cued, reflecting responses to linguistic signals rather than stable demographic categories. We therefore call for multi-cue, mechanism-aware evaluations as a foundation for robust and interpretable claims about demographic variation in LLM responses.

Online misinformation remains a critical challenge, and fact-checkers increasingly rely on claim matching systems that use sentence embedding models to retrieve relevant fact-checks. However, as users interact with claims online, they often introduce edits, and it remains unclear whether current embedding models used in retrieval are robust to such edits. To investigate this, we introduce a perturbation framework that generates valid and natural claim variations, enabling us to assess the robustness of a wide-range of sentence embedding models in a multi-stage retrieval pipeline and evaluate the effectiveness of various mitigation approaches. Our evaluation reveals that standard embedding models exhibit notable performance drops on edited claims, while LLM-distilled embedding models offer improved robustness at a higher computational cost. Although a strong reranker helps to reduce the performance drop, it cannot fully compensate for first-stage retrieval gaps. To address these retrieval gaps, we evaluate train- and inference-time mitigation approaches, demonstrating that they can improve in-domain robustness by up to 17 percentage points and boost out-of-domain generalization by 10 percentage points. Overall, our findings provide practical improvements to claim-matching systems, enabling more reliable fact-checking of evolving misinformation.

To address the global challenge of online hate speech, prior research has developed detection models to flag such content on social media. However, due to systematic biases in evaluation datasets, the real-world effectiveness of these models remains unclear, particularly across geographies. We introduce HateDay, the first global hate speech dataset representative of social media settings, constructed from a random sample of all tweets posted on September 21, 2022 and covering eight languages and four English-speaking countries. Using HateDay, we uncover substantial variation in the prevalence and composition of hate speech across languages and regions. We show that evaluations on academic datasets greatly overestimate real-world detection performance, which we find is very low, especially for non-European languages. Our analysis identifies key drivers of this gap, including models’ difficulty to distinguish hate from offensive speech and a mismatch between the target groups emphasized in academic datasets and those most frequently targeted in real-world settings. We argue that poor model performance makes public models ill-suited for automatic hate speech moderation and find that high moderation rates are only achievable with substantial human oversight. Our results underscore the need to evaluate detection systems on data that reflects the complexity and diversity of real-world social media.

Perceptions of hate can vary greatly across cultural contexts. Hate speech (HS) datasets, however, have traditionally been developed by language. This hides potential cultural biases, as one language may be spoken in different countries home to different cultures. In this work, we evaluate cultural bias in HS datasets by leveraging two interrelated cultural proxies: language and geography. We conduct a systematic survey of HS datasets in eight languages and confirm past findings on their English-language bias, but also show that this bias has been steadily decreasing in the past few years. For three geographically-widespread languages—English, Arabic and Spanish—we then leverage geographical metadata from tweets to approximate geo-cultural contexts by pairing language and country information. We find that HS datasets for these languages exhibit a strong geo-cultural bias, largely overrepresenting a handful of countries (e.g., US and UK for English) relative to their prominence in both the broader social media population and the general population speaking these languages. Based on these findings, we formulate recommendations for the creation of future HS datasets.

To address the global issue of online hate, hate speech detection (HSD) systems are typically developed on datasets from the United States, thereby failing to generalize to English dialects from the Majority World. Furthermore, HSD models are often evaluated on non-representative samples, raising concerns about overestimating model performance in real-world settings. In this work, we introduce NaijaHate, the first dataset annotated for HSD which contains a representative sample of Nigerian tweets. We demonstrate that HSD evaluated on biased datasets traditionally used in the literature consistently overestimates real-world performance by at least two-fold. We then propose NaijaXLM-T, a pretrained model tailored to the Nigerian Twitter context, and establish the key role played by domain-adaptive pretraining and finetuning in maximizing HSD performance. Finally, owing to the modest performance of HSD systems in real-world conditions, we find that content moderators would need to review about ten thousand Nigerian tweets flagged as hateful daily to moderate 60% of all hateful content, highlighting the challenges of moderating hate speech at scale as social media usage continues to grow globally. Taken together, these results pave the way towards robust HSD systems and a better protection of social media users from hateful content in low-resource settings.

Detecting disclosures of individuals’ employment status on social media can provide valuable information to match job seekers with suitable vacancies, offer social protection, or measure labor market flows. However, identifying such personal disclosures is a challenging task due to their rarity in a sea of social media content and the variety of linguistic forms used to describe them. Here, we examine three Active Learning (AL) strategies in real-world settings of extreme class imbalance, and identify five types of disclosures about individuals’ employment status (e.g. job loss) in three languages using BERT-based classification models. Our findings show that, even under extreme imbalance settings, a small number of AL iterations is sufficient to obtain large and significant gains in precision, recall, and diversity of results compared to a supervised baseline with the same number of labels. We also find that no AL strategy consistently outperforms the rest. Qualitative analysis suggests that AL helps focus the attention mechanism of BERT on core terms and adjust the boundaries of semantic expansion, highlighting the importance of interpretable models to provide greater control and visibility into this dynamic learning process.