Directed Social Regard: Surfacing Targeted Advocacy, Opposition, Aid, Harms, and Victimization in Online Media

Understanding moral values in social media text offers insight into moral judgement formation, and supervised NLP models trained on crowdsourced data have achieved strong classification performance. However, most approaches simplify the problem by aggregating multiple annotators' labels into a single "ground truth", overlooking the inherent subjectivity of the task. In practice, there are disagreements between annotators caused by personal viewpoint or inherent ambiguities, particularly for short tweets. Here, we extend a pretrained language model with a layer that learns annotator-specific features. Our model improves predictions of individual annotations and yields representations that reveal meaningful insights into annotators' moral perspectives. We show that models trained on aggregated labels may hide variation and give a misleading impression of performance. Overall, we demonstrate that disagreement reflects the inherent subjectivity of the task and that modelling individual perspectives creates benefits for moral classification of texts.

LLM-powered social agents are increasingly used to simulate online social behavior, yet their realism remains difficult to validate. Existing work has largely relied on general-purpose benchmarks, while less attention has been paid to short, reactive discourse such as audience replies to online news. In this paper, we evaluate whether LLM-generated reactions to Spanish online news reproduce measurable properties of real audience discourse. Using the Hatemedia dataset, we pair 5,631 news items with 58,555 real audience reactions, and generate a matched synthetic dataset using five LLMs under a shared experimental setting. We compare real and synthetic reactions across three dimensions: hate speech, sentiment, and semantic alignment, considering both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned generation. Results show that off-the-shelf models are poor proxies for real audience reactions: they strongly underproduce hate speech, introduce model-specific sentiment biases, and remain distributionally distant from human replies. Fine-tuning improves fidelity unevenly. Qwen3 provides the most balanced approximation, while Mistral7B achieves the strongest sentiment and semantic alignment but overshoots hate prevalence. Plausible synthetic replies do not necessarily reproduce the distributional properties of public discourse.

Understanding how people argue across ideological divides online is important for studying political polarization, misinformation, and content moderation. Existing datasets capture only part of this problem: some preserve text but ignore interaction structure, some model structure without rich semantics, and others represent conversations without stable user-level ideological identity. We introduce ControBench, a benchmark for controversial discourse analysis that combines heterogeneous social interaction graphs with rich textual semantics. Built from Reddit discussions on three topics, Trump, abortion, and religion, ControBench contains 7,370 users, 1,783 posts, and 26,525 interactions. The graph contains user and post nodes connected by semantically enriched edges; in particular, user-comment-user edges encode both a reply and the parent comment that it responds to, preserving local argumentative context. User labels are derived from self-declared Reddit flairs, providing a scalable proxy for ideological identity without manual annotation. The resulting datasets exhibit low or negative adjusted homophily (Trump: -0.77, Abortion: 0.06, Religion: 0.04), reflecting the cross-cutting structure of real-world debate. We evaluate graph neural networks, pretrained language models, and large language models on ControBench and observe distinct performance patterns across topics and model families, especially when ideological boundaries are ambiguous. These results position ControBench as a challenging and realistic benchmark for controversial discourse analysis.