Papers › Characterizing (Un)moderated Textual Data in Social Systems
Characterizing (Un)moderated Textual Data in Social Systems
Lucas Henrique Costa de Lima, Julio Reis, Philipe Melo, Fabricio Murai, Fabricio Benevenuto
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Despite the valuable social interactions that online media promote, these systems provide space for speech that would be potentially detrimental to different groups of people. The moderation of content imposed by many social media has motivated the emergence of a new social system for free speech named Gab, which lacks moderation of content. This article characterizes and compares moderated textual data from Twitter with a set of unmoderated data from Gab. In particular, we analyze distinguishing characteristics of moderated and unmoderated content in terms of linguistic features, evaluate hate speech and its different forms in both environments. Our work shows that unmoderated content presents different psycholinguistic features, more negative sentiment and higher toxicity. Our findings support that unmoderated environments may have proportionally more online hate speech. We hope our analysis and findings contribute to the debate about hate speech and benefit systems aiming at deploying hate speech detection approaches.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections