Content moderation platforms concentrate resources on English content despite serving predominantly non-English speaking users.Also, given the scarcity of native moderators for low-resource languages, non-native moderators must bridge this gap in moderation tasks such as hate speech moderation.Through a user study, we identify that non-native moderators struggle with understanding culturally-specific knowledge, sentiment, and internet culture in the hate speech.To assist non-native moderators, we present LLM-C3MOD, a human-LLM collaborative pipeline with three steps: (1) RAG-enhanced cultural context annotations; (2) initial LLM-based moderation; and (3) targeted human moderation for cases lacking LLM consensus.Evaluated on Korean hate speech dataset with Indonesian and German participants, our system achieves 78% accuracy (surpassing GPT-4o’s 71% baseline) while reducing human workload by 83.6%.In addition, cultural context annotations improved non-native moderator accuracy from 22% to 61%, with humans notably excelling at nuanced tasks where LLMs struggle.Our findings demonstrate that non-native moderators, when properly supported by LLMs, can effectively contribute to cross-cultural hate speech moderation.

In a highly globalized world, it is important for multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) to recognize and respond correctly to mixed-cultural inputs.For example, a model should correctly identify kimchi (Korean food) in an image both when an Asian woman is eating it, as well as an African man is eating it.However, current MLLMs show an over-reliance on the visual features of the person, leading to misclassification of the entities. To examine the robustness of MLLMs to different ethnicity, we introduce MIXCUBE, a cross-cultural bias benchmark, and study elements from five countries and four ethnicities. Our findings reveal that MLLMs achieve both higher accuracy and lower sensitivity to such perturbation for high-resource cultures, but not for low-resource cultures. GPT-4o, the best-performing model overall, shows up to 58% difference in accuracy between the original and perturbed cultural settings in low-resource cultures