Assessing and Refining ChatGPT's Performance in Identifying Targeting and Inappropriate Language: A Comparative Study

Language operates as a mechanism of both marginalization and resistance, especially for minority communities navigating insensitive and harmful speech online. As content moderation increasingly depends on large language models (LLMs), concerns arise about whether these systems can recognize culturally insensitive speech-language that disregards or marginalizes the cultural and religious perspectives of historically underrepresented communities, often through implicit erasure, misrepresentation, or normative framing, rather than overt hostility. Focusing on Bangladesh's Hindu and Chakma communities -- the country's largest religious and Indigenous ethnic minorities, respectively -- this paper investigates the epistemic limits of LLM-based moderation systems and explores methods for incorporating minority perspectives. We co-created a culturally grounded corpus of insensitive speech with community members and integrated their narratives into moderation pipelines using retrieval augmented generation (RAG). Our tool, Mod-Guide, improves LLM sensitivity to minority viewpoints by leveraging contextual cues derived from lived experience. Through mixed-method evaluations involving both minority and majority participants, we demonstrate that RAG-enhanced moderation responses are more contextually accurate and perceived differently across ethnic lines. This work advances research in human-computer interaction, AI ethics, and social computing by foregrounding restorative justice and hermeneutical inclusion in the design of content moderation systems.

Large language model (LLM)-powered content moderation systems are a critical defense against harmful online content. However, they operate primarily on tokenized text and often overlook visual cues that humans naturally use when interpreting content. We show that this limitation creates a fundamental vulnerability: content readily recognized as harmful by humans can evade automated moderation. To systematically study this problem, we introduce Human-Perceptible Adversarial Attacks (HPAA), which embed harmful expressions into otherwise benign text using visually salient typographic manipulations. HPAA strategically combines features such as spacing, emphasis, and spatial arrangement to preserve human recognition while reducing machine detectability. Operating in a black-box setting with a small query budget, the attack automatically generates evasive content without model access or gradient information. We evaluate HPAA on multiple datasets and thirteen widely deployed moderation systems, including commercial APIs and state-of-the-art open-source guardrails. With only three detector queries, generated attacks achieve over 86% human recognition while keeping detection rates below 1% across evaluated systems. We further identify the typographic factors driving successful evasion, analyze why current moderation architectures fail to capture these signals, and discuss practical defenses. Our findings reveal a fundamental blind spot in current LLM-based moderation systems and motivate moderation approaches that better align with human perceptual understanding.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard content moderation benchmarks. However, these benchmarks often aggregate multiple moderation criteria into a single label, making it unclear whether models can disentangle them and reliably apply each criterion when making decisions. To study whether LLMs exhibit criterion-conditioned behaviour, we introduce Diagnostic Evaluation of COntent (DECO), a criterion-independent factorisation of content that enables controlled, criterion-level evaluation. We also introduce pairwise evaluation to compare model outputs across different criteria for the same input. Across four moderation datasets and four LLMs, we find that strong benchmark performance can hide substantial failures at the criterion level. Models struggle most when correct decisions depend not on overall harmfulness, but on the specific aspect of the content that the criterion requires them to assess. Our results highlight a key limitation of current content moderation benchmarks: strong performance on aggregated labels does not provide sufficient evidence that LLMs can reliably evaluate content with respect to individual moderation criteria. These findings call for the development of evaluation methods that explicitly measure criterion-conditioned behaviour.