The Social World of Content Abusers in Community Question Answering

Community-based question answering platforms can be rich sources of information on a variety of specialized topics, from finance to cooking. The usefulness of such platforms depends heavily on user contributions (questions and answers), but also on respecting the community rules. As a crowd-sourced service, such platforms rely on their users for monitoring and flagging content that violates community rules. Common wisdom is to eliminate the users who receive many flags. Our analysis of a year of traces from a mature Q&A site shows that the number of flags does not tell the full story: on one hand, users with many flags may still contribute positively to the community. On the other hand, users who never get flagged are found to violate community rules and get their accounts suspended. This analysis, however, also shows that abusive users are betrayed by their network properties: we find strong evidence of homophilous behavior and use this finding to detect abusive users who go under the community radar. Based on our empirical observations, we build a classifier that is able to detect abusive users with an accuracy as high as 83%.Comment: Published in the proceedings of the 24th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2015

Preference-Informed Fairness

We study notions of fairness in decision-making systems when individuals have diverse preferences over the possible outcomes of the decisions. Our starting point is the seminal work of Dwork et al. which introduced a notion of individual fairness (IF): given a task-specific similarity metric, every pair of individuals who are similarly qualified according to the metric should receive similar outcomes. We show that when individuals have diverse preferences over outcomes, requiring IF may unintentionally lead to less-preferred outcomes for the very individuals that IF aims to protect. A natural alternative to IF is the classic notion of fair division, envy-freeness (EF): no individual should prefer another individual's outcome over their own. Although EF allows for solutions where all individuals receive a highly-preferred outcome, EF may also be overly-restrictive. For instance, if many individuals agree on the best outcome, then if any individual receives this outcome, they all must receive it, regardless of each individual's underlying qualifications for the outcome. We introduce and study a new notion of preference-informed individual fairness (PIIF) that is a relaxation of both individual fairness and envy-freeness. At a high-level, PIIF requires that outcomes satisfy IF-style constraints, but allows for deviations provided they are in line with individuals' preferences. We show that PIIF can permit outcomes that are more favorable to individuals than any IF solution, while providing considerably more flexibility to the decision-maker than EF. In addition, we show how to efficiently optimize any convex objective over the outcomes subject to PIIF for a rich class of individual preferences. Finally, we demonstrate the broad applicability of the PIIF framework by extending our definitions and algorithms to the multiple-task targeted advertising setting introduced by Dwork and Ilvento