Researcher profile

Jeffrey T. Hancock

Jeffrey T. Hancock contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Hate Raids on Twitch: Echoes of the Past, New Modalities, and Implications for Platform Governance

In the summer of 2021, users on the livestreaming platform Twitch were targeted by a wave of "hate raids," a form of attack that overwhelms a streamer's chatroom with hateful messages, often through the use of bots and automation. Using a mixed-methods approach, we combine a quantitative measurement of attacks across the platform with interviews of streamers and third-party bot developers. We present evidence that confirms that some hate raids were highly-targeted, hate-driven attacks, but we also observe another mode of hate raid similar to networked harassment and specific forms of subcultural trolling. We show that the streamers who self-identify as LGBTQ+ and/or Black were disproportionately targeted and that hate raid messages were most commonly rooted in anti-Black racism and antisemitism. We also document how these attacks elicited rapid community responses in both bolstering reactive moderation and developing proactive mitigations for future attacks. We conclude by discussing how platforms can better prepare for attacks and protect at-risk communities while considering the division of labor between community moderators, tool-builders, and platforms.

preprint2022arXiv

Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models

Whose labels should a machine learning (ML) algorithm learn to emulate? For ML tasks ranging from online comment toxicity to misinformation detection to medical diagnosis, different groups in society may have irreconcilable disagreements about ground truth labels. Supervised ML today resolves these label disagreements implicitly using majority vote, which overrides minority groups' labels. We introduce jury learning, a supervised ML approach that resolves these disagreements explicitly through the metaphor of a jury: defining which people or groups, in what proportion, determine the classifier's prediction. For example, a jury learning model for online toxicity might centrally feature women and Black jurors, who are commonly targets of online harassment. To enable jury learning, we contribute a deep learning architecture that models every annotator in a dataset, samples from annotators' models to populate the jury, then runs inference to classify. Our architecture enables juries that dynamically adapt their composition, explore counterfactuals, and visualize dissent.

preprint2011arXiv

Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination

Consumers increasingly rate, review and research products online. Consequently, websites containing consumer reviews are becoming targets of opinion spam. While recent work has focused primarily on manually identifiable instances of opinion spam, in this work we study deceptive opinion spam---fictitious opinions that have been deliberately written to sound authentic. Integrating work from psychology and computational linguistics, we develop and compare three approaches to detecting deceptive opinion spam, and ultimately develop a classifier that is nearly 90% accurate on our gold-standard opinion spam dataset. Based on feature analysis of our learned models, we additionally make several theoretical contributions, including revealing a relationship between deceptive opinions and imaginative writing.