Organizations: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Aarhus Univeristy
Abstract
Current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in social media moderation completely overlook a serious threat: covert advertisements, which disguise themselves as regular posts to deceive and mislead consumers into making purchases, leading to significant ethical and legal concerns. In this paper, we present the CHASM, a first-of-its-kind dataset designed to evaluate the capability of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in detecting covert advertisements on social media. CHASM is a high-quality, anonymized, manually curated dataset consisting of 4,992 instances, based on real-world scenarios from the Chinese social media platform Rednote. The dataset was collected and annotated under strict privacy protection and quality control protocols. It includes many product experience sharing posts that closely resemble covert advertisements, making the dataset particularly challenging.The results show that under both zero-shot and in-context learning settings, none of the current MLLMs are sufficiently reliable for detecting covert advertisements.Our further experiments revealed that fine-tuning open-source MLLMs on our dataset yielded noticeable performance gains. However, significant challenges persist, such as detecting subtle cues in comments and differences in visual and textual structures.We provide in-depth error analysis and outline future research directions. We hope our study can serve as a call for the research community and platform moderators to develop more precise defenses against this emerging threat.
The promotion of betting applications on social media platforms has increased significantly in recent years. Many of these advertisements use persuasive techniques that may mislead users, encourage risky behavior, and potentially influence users' mental well-being. However, research on the automated detection of manipulative and deceptive betting advertisements remains limited due to the lack of publicly available annotated datasets. In this work, we introduce a new dataset of betting-related advertisements collected from two widely used social media platforms, Instagram and Reddit. The advertisements were manually annotated for manipulative and deceptive advertising practices. In addition to classification labels, the dataset includes human-provided explanations that describe the reasoning behind each annotation, enabling research into explainable approaches to detecting manipulative advertising. Furthermore, we analyze the strategies commonly used in betting advertisements and examine how these persuasive tactics may impact users' mental health. The proposed framework can also enable practical applications such as browser plugins that warn users about manipulative betting advertisements and automated web crawlers that help regulatory authorities monitor and detect such promotions online.
MSVPJ Sathvik, Parmitha Vangapandu, Nishit Rane +3
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.