AI Still Useless at Catching Hate Speech, Research Finds (theregister.co.uk) 238
New research has shown just how bad AI is at dealing with online trolls. From a report: Such systems struggle to automatically flag nudity and violence, don't understand text well enough to shoot down fake news and aren't effective at detecting abusive comments from trolls hiding behind their keyboards. A group of researchers from Aalto University and the University of Padua found this out when they tested seven state-of-the-art models used to detect hate speech. All of them failed to recognize foul language when subtle changes were made, according to a paper [PDF] on arXiv. Adversarial examples can be created automatically by using algorithms to misspell certain words, swap characters for numbers or add random spaces between words or attach innocuous words such as 'love' in sentences.
No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How do you catch something that doesn't exist?
Trained snipe and jackalope(s) sniff it out.
"Hate crimes" are just crimes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless there are "happy murders" and "love frauds" ?
Murder is by definition unlawful. Homicide on the other hand has four kinds, felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy. At least according to Ambrose Bierce. That might equate to (by my estimation at least) murder, manslaughter, self defense, and war.
I remember a short exchange on the distinction between killing and murder in the movie The Big Red One. In short is that you don't "murder" a Nazi, you kill them, much like one would kill a rabid dog. A sick dog isn't ever murdered because there
Re:No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech (and the desire to protect it) is necessary precisely because there are things like hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it does exist. The problem is that it is wrapped in often a complex set of explanations, that makes it difficult for a computer to figure out if it is hate speech or just a deep explanation of the problem.
The core of the problem is people spend way too much time and effort to validate being cruel to other people. Discrimination and Hate speech compared to explaining racial and cultural difference often difficult.
Usually the key difference is the result of the premise, which is this is why X groups is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is also often far more "hate speech" today on the far political left than on the far political right, against whom the statutes are enforced. It's far easier to charge a skinhead than a 6 foot former football player transgender person who grips the back of the neck of a debate opponent who is at least 5 inches shorter and 70 pounds lighter and promise to send them home in an ambulance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It's a very, very
Um.. yeah, yeah there is (Score:2)
It is commonly used by a ruling class in order to divide the working class into manageable chunks. It is part of a
Re: No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:2)
The algorithm is very simple:
1. If speaker=conservative, -> hate speech
2. If statement != progressive -> hate speech
3. If 1)+2) -> nazi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Where I went to university those deemed a minority had the power to demand free tuition, and get it, and the privilege to get admitted with a lower ACT or SAT score than I did. Sounds like racism to me, and against me, a white man.
I'm sure someone will want to defend this because minorities "earned" this because white men discriminated against them in the past. Bullshit! These people didn't experience any discrimination, they were 18 years old at the time and never lived under any discrimination.
Re: No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:2)
So your definition of non-asshole a feminazis sjw with army of manlette followers?
Re: (Score:2)
nothing misogynistic about saying a ridiculous and unrealistic man-hating point of view is stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The infection runs deep.
Re:No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
You may believe hate speech is an acceptable form of expression, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's literally defined in the dictionary now
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
People change definitions all the time. For example whole communities have exempted themselves from being racist as described below. This is an obvious double standard but my real question is what if one protected class which allegedly can't be racist says something racist to another protected class? For example if Mexicans complain about blacks is that racist? This is the problem with double standards, they are illogical to begin with so they can't stand up to scrutiny. Citations of rationalizing double standards: https://www.elitedaily.com/lif... [elitedaily.com] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-s... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well that sure explains why Islam is a race, but Christianity isn't. But being racist to blacks isn't okay, but being racist to asians and whites is okay.
Re:No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yesterday it was "far right" speech
Today it is "hate speech"
Tomorrow it will be censored.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -- Francois-Marie Arouet
--
Only children censor.
Adults communicate and even laugh at taboo subjects.
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't defend scoundrels, scoundrels will use scoundrels to attack you.
Re: (Score:2)
By that definition, isn't speech expressing hatred of people spouting hate speech, also hate speech? So if you call white supremacists a bunch of racist Nazi sympathizers who aren't fit to breathe the same air you do, that's hate speech.
Re:MEPR as a generalized solution to hate speakers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply having a small minority of right- or left leaning individuals "determining" that something is hate speech, does not make it such.
And apparently a number of these people are mods right here.
Re: No such thing as "hate speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate is very subjective. Trying to define it as "protecting minorities" means in your world, it's acceptable for a minority to say mean things about the majority, but if someone in the majority says the exact same thing about someone in the minority, it's not. That's not equality. Then we get to global demographics and what might be a minority in a locale, is actually a majority in the global context. This is insanity and a political construct.
In reality what we have in the US at this time is a bunch of SJWs labeling any speech they don't like as "hate speech". The term is being used as a political weapon, not as an actual betterment of society. It's being used to silence opinions, often when the side silencing has no coherent argument. Someone says X and the other person with no counter argument screams BIGOT!
At the end of the day, words are just words. We decide how much power to give them. If we decide that something is hateful and should never be said, it becomes very powerful. If you just decide that anyone that says something is an ignorant fool and ignore them, those same words lose power. What is powerful is freedom of speech. Changes to society only happen when unpopular things are allowed to be said. Many of those are not improvements, but out of that muck, the good things rise up. Freedom of speech does not exist to ensure people can say uncontroversial things, it exists to allow opposition and controversial opinions to have a chance to live and evolve. Without that, we stagnate as a people.
Re: (Score:3)
You just have to use the right current terminology to avoid the dreaded classification. When I was young, we had Jew-baiting in certain corners of the political spectrum; now it's anti-Zionist activism. We once had segregated lunch counters; now we call them "safe spaces."
On the other hand... (Score:4, Funny)
... they're fucking *brilliant* at CREATING it!
https://www.theverge.com/2016/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say... Fuck the fucking fuckers.
And at almost everything else (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that, as of today, most of the time it is easier, faster and more efficient to do the job yourself
I agree. Not getting the weather forecast is much easier if you do it yourself.
3 word sentence (Score:2)
"AI still useless"...
why? AI doesn't exist yet.
Re: (Score:2)
AI doesn't exist yet.
General, human level AI doesn't exist yet, but that's only a small subset of the field. AI is actually pretty ubiquitous. There' very likely a fuzz logic controller in your dishwasher and washing machine to control water levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how your define AI. Some consider expert systems AI and, well, those have existed for a long time.
There aren't even good general definitions of the word intelligence.
AI-ish. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, hate speech filters are not likely to start working any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of AI systems that are better at performing tasks than their programmers could do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's because all of the learning/reasoning software that we proudly call AI is not AI at all.
Yes it is.
It's just a series of pattern recognition and reasoning operations ...
.
Uhm... but that would make those systems AI and you just said they weren't, so now you're pulling a "Trump" and contradicting yourself within a single statement.
Ah! I see the confusion! You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
By "true" AI, I guess you mean "general AI" of human intelligence? Actual AI encompasses a LOT more than that.
In other words, hate speech filters are not likely to start working any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. I've written "pattern recognition and reasoning operations" for my entire career. Using that as a definition is too vague to be of any use.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of an idiot believes that regexes are AI?
Uh, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about?
Regexs are finite-state machines, and finite-state machines are AI.
Regexs came out of the study of computational theory, formal systems, language structure and automata theory, in the early days of AI.
They are pretty directly related to the work of Turing himself, and in many ways can be regarded as the first successful application of AI. Regexs are one of our attempts to understand the structure of language from a computational perspective.
If that's
No, that's not why (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just a series of pattern recognition and reasoning operations which are only as good as the programmers
All that is true but it's not the fundamental reason for failure.
The fundamental reason for failure is, there is no such thing as hate speech. You cannot write some reasoned algorithmic or pattern based approach to detecting something that is only detectable by someone with hatred inside them.
Until we teach a true AI to hate, it in turn will not recognize speech that drives it mad and thus should be declared "hate" speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...there is no such thing as hate speech...
So your saying it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to advocate for physical violence against an identifiable group of people?
Like, if I wanted to, I would be unable to utter the words: "Let's go kill all the republicans"?
That's also not hate speech. (Score:2)
So your saying it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to advocate for physical violence against an identifiable group of people?
I am saying that is not hate speech. That's called "shit talking". Or maybe it truly is a call to violence. Depending on how written maybe they should be having a police visit.
It could also be sarcasm. It could be anything.
But "hate speech" has no meaning as a term. Some people are claiming even non-speech things are hate speech, that is how weak and pointless the term has become.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating "hate speech" with "incitement". They are two separate things. "Incitement" as in "incitement to violence" is a pretty clear and objective standard. "Hate speech" is anything but objective or clear and changes depending on the "victimhood status" of the particular speaker.
The resurgence in Post-Modernist thought is the genesis for "hate speech", "safe spaces", "white privilege", "micro-aggressions" and many other of the relatively recent social bu
I don't need your protection. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've somehow managed to get by for many years without any algorithms to "protect" me from speech. So here's my message to the inventors of this algorithm: I'd love it if you would fuck right off, OK? Thanks and have a great day!
Re:I don't need your protection. (Score:4, Funny)
Amused to find that within two minutes of posting, my contribution was modded "50% Insightful, 50% Redundant".
I have to admit, it's a fair enough grade. Even as I posted I was thinking to myself-- what I am saying is so blindingly obvious, does it really need to be said at all?
But I think the very existence of this "research" shows that it does need to be said, loudly, and often, and by as many people as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not for you, it's for Facebook. Unsupported Facebook doesn't want certain content on its platform, e.g. illegal images.
Policing content is very labour intensive, so they create tools to reduce the burden. Blocking known images, for example. But that still means a lot of human review, which is not only labour intensive but pretty hard on the reviewers too.
It's even worse with hate speech. They can do some simple pattern matching like "1488" but most of it is users reporting material and well beyond the
Re: (Score:2)
It's not for you, it's for Facebook. Unsupported Facebook doesn't want certain content on its platform, e.g. illegal images.
Policing content is very labour intensive, so they create tools to reduce the burden. Blocking known images, for example. But that still means a lot of human review, which is not only labour intensive but pretty hard on the reviewers too.
It's even worse with hate speech. They can do some simple pattern matching like "1488" but most of it is users reporting material and well beyond the ability of AI to evaluate.
Which is why the *only* solution is to pass a law so that Facebook, Twitter, ISPs, etc are not held legally liable for the content other people disseminate on their platform.
These entities are not "publishers" in the traditional sense. They don't read a post before it goes live; they exercise no editorial control prior to publication, and as you point out, it would be humanly impossible for them to do so (because of the vast amount of content being published every second). They are more akin to a phone co
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of legal liability. Facebook doesn't want certain legal content on its service because it wants to be an attractive destination for the majority of users.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the *only* solution is to pass a law so that Facebook, Twitter, ISPs, etc are not held legally liable for the content other people disseminate on their platform.
Are you being sarcastic, or do you not know that they already enjoy this legal protection?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the *only* solution is to pass a law so that Facebook, Twitter, ISPs, etc are not held legally liable for the content other people disseminate on their platform.
Are you being sarcastic, or do you not know that they already enjoy this legal protection?
It's more complicated than that. See for example: https://www.npr.org/sections/a... [npr.org]
Really, it's more complicated than my earlier post suggested. The issue is not merely whether Facebook is protected *now*: it's whether they can count on that protection going forward. As the recent congressional hearings with Zuckerberg made clear, Facebook is terrified of what laws Congress might come up with to punish them, and they are currently scrambling to take steps to *prevent* that happening. Hence the renewed i
Re: (Score:2)
It's more complicated than that. See for example: https://www.npr.org/sections/a... [npr.org]
I had forgotten about that, but it's really limited in scope and that's not what is pushing the current censorship. What's really going on is that the Big Tech oligarchy leans heavily left, and they ramped up their censorship to disparately impact conservatives right before the midterms. And if they're going to be political about their censorship, I don't think they deserve legal protection under the law for their content.
Re: (Score:2)
I've somehow managed to get by for many years without any algorithms to "protect" me from speech.
You've probably never been on the receiving end of messages telling you that they are going to rape you until you bleed. Or that they have a K-Bar and are going to shove it up your cunt. Or that your "mutilated corpse will be on the cover of Jezebel tomorrow." Or that they are going to kill your children, and add "I know where you live" followed by your home address.
So, yes, since it affects other people who aren't you, and you are the only person who is important, sure, it's not a problem.
Well, I have a few thoughts on that:
1) If someone conveys a believable threat of violence or bodily harm to you, they've committed a crime-- a felony, I believe-- and you can talk to the police and have them arrested. I work with quite a few clients who are victims of DV, so I've seen this done many times.
2) If someone is intent on conveying a threat of violence or bodily harm, they have an infinite number of options for doing so. They can send you a text message. They can make a threatening phone call.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly wouldn't enjoy getting a message like that. But I would rather get such a message on FB where police could bag and tag it rather than just having them actually do it without warning.
False positive (Score:5, Interesting)
aka the "Scunthorpe problem" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Language is difficult, complex, and fluid. We can make meaning out of fairly new and novel combinations of letters and cymbals, and we can parse incorrect words and make meanies out of them. We can also use words in novel ways to make new meaning, and I do notsee AI being able to pick up something like that anytime in the near future.
Humans have a brain that's wired for understanding language. It's going to be a long time before AI can learn on the vast amount of human skill in this area to be able to do it
1st Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress shall make no law....
Congress
Private site, private terms of service. Don't like it, build your own site.
Some of us don't want to wade through the poisonous angry vitriol spewed by many on just about every site nowadays with a message forum feature. I am glad to see sites do something about it, and I encourage more of it. Automating it is required due to the sheer volume of bile they are confronted with.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL chat rooms are to the left Perfect for SJWs and other children.
The internet was built for grownups. It's just not child safe. Pease nerf it with a whitelist of sites with bad words filtered out, and leave the rest of it alone. Maybe the scientologists can 'help' you?
Also: Protip /.s idiotic 'bad word filter' can be defeated with tags in the words. e.g. Bold, unbold in the middle of words usually filtered.
Re: (Score:2)
What I said. Nerf the net with a whitelist of sites that protect you (and other children).
Common carrier status matters. All the sites that filter, are _responsible_ for all content on their sites.
There have been a whole list of, now ignored, sites that ended their viability with such rules. The surprise would be if the filtered sites survive for long.
Re: (Score:2)
Private site, private terms of service. Don't like it, build your own site.
Ignoring how "build your own platform (that costs millions of dollars and is wholly unreasonable to expect a private citizen to engage in)" is a bullshit argument, would you also say that about a private business that's "open to the public?"
E.G. if a baker wants to refuse to bake goods for certain minority demographics, you think they should be able to? Or if a toll road owner wants to bar people of a certain political ideology from travelling the roads they own, they have that right? Just trying to see how
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how it says nothing about you having to let anyone and everyone into your private establishment and allow them to say whatever they like.
Get back to us when Facebook.gov is a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Given all the resources, and 10s of thousands of jobs h
Re: (Score:2)
So long as the Constitution Stands, the notion of hate speech is nonsense. To quote an American President: ...
That's a blisteringly US-centric response. Here was a paper authored by some Fins and an Italian. From the introduction of the paper, hate speech is defined in both US law and EU law. The paper looked at datasets from Wikipedia and Twitter, both places with a hugely international corpus.
The paper in any case is independent of what you or the law defines as hate speech. In the paper, they judged whether a variety of published algorithms could come up with the same "hatefulness scoring" as a crowd-sourced col
Stop trying to "flag" hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Human language is evolutionary, and humans have a need to express their feelings with others, which can occur through various outlets, but mostly by talking about them.
If someone feels what you call hatred, and you just don't like that, and you feel they shouldn't be able to express that, so you
try banning a word or phrase, then what do you think happens?
Either (A) They find a different mode of expression, and for "Hate speech" that may be bad, since their channel may be taking negative actions in the real world to express their feelings instead of talking about it in a more passive setting. You need to allow so called speakers of "Hate Speech" to be able to express their views in order to be able to successfully have a conversation with those people and possibly reason them to a different position, or at least understand the motivating factors.
Or (B) People find a different word or phrase or image or euphamism to express the same thing.
Because language is evolutionary --- existing words will be co-opted, or new words or phrases will be created to express what they wish to express.
These people who would write "hate speech"; will simply use different words or phrases to express their exact feelings, whatever they can find which
will avoid flagging the detection system -- because language is evolutionary, in time others will begin to get feelings like the new phrases or words they co-opted
may now qualify as hate speech, and thus the algorithms fall out of date.
The real fix is not to try and "block" offensive words or "hate speech", BUT instead to modify the social conventions around the language,
so that there is no such thing as a verboten word, phrase, or sentence.
Impressive work by an amateur (Score:2)
This is a good start:
https://hackaday.com/2018/07/2... [hackaday.com]
Here's my hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate Nazis. I really really hate Nazis. People willing to round up innocent men, women, and children, and kill them are demonic.
I hate the KKK. I grew up in a predominately Catholic community and I'd hear stories from my dad and grandparents about the KKK holding rallies. They were outnumbered, and they knew this, so they'd play nice without the masks. They'd be a lot of bark with no bite but in other areas of the USA they'd kill Catholics. Not many people are aware of this but the KKK likely strung up as many Catholics in trees as they did blacks. So, I really hate the KKK. I remember David Duke doing some national tour and ending up in the area to do some speech. A lot of people showed up to hear the idiot talk. I guess he thought he'd get some support in a place that was 99% white, but failed the most basic of demographic testing and seems to have not realized that the crowd was 80%+ Catholic.
I hate these people and they deserve to burn in hell. What I hate more is restrictions on one's ability to express themselves as they wish. Should David Duke have come around here to speak? Not really, but that's just a failure to recognize his audience. He spoke and he had every right to speak. He got on the local evening news and I got to see all the stunned faces at what he was saying. The guy is an idiot and I'm not going to stop him from exposing his idiocy.
You "Anti-Fa" people out there need to learn a bit from the quiet resistance that David Duke met 25 or so years ago. As I recall no one raised a sign. Certainly no one raised a fist. Everyone I saw listened to the nonsense and then ignored the bastard. That's what I see a lot on the left/right political spectrum, the left want to shut people up and the right wants them to keep talking. If "hate speech" is such a terrible idea then why fear it being spoken?
So, there's my hate speech rant. I hate the Nazis, I hate the KKK, and I hate people that want to stop "hate speech". This isn't about "hate speech", this is about stopping the political competition from speaking and that should never be tolerated.
Re:Here's my hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to study Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.
I'm quite aware of the paradox. I've heard it expressed in several different ways. One is, "There is one thought that stops all thought and that is the one thought that needs to be stopped." Or, "Don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out."
However, from your sig I would already bet that you will never figure it out. Can you even imagine that your worship words have actual meanings?
I'm trying to figure it out. Here's one thing that I'm quite sure of is when it comes to concepts like one's freedom to speak we must err on the side of speaking freely. I remember as a kid watching some movie on TV about some tribe in Africa, a fictionalized account of historical events. Now in most any other case of what is considered acceptable on television in the West, or what my parents would allow me to watch at that age, topless women would not be among them. But the people making the movie thought that having women in the tribe wear something to cover their nipples would not only be historically inaccurate it would be more distracting than the perceived immodesty. There's a line there on what is considered acceptable and it gets fuzzy sometimes. I saw a similar thing happen with a documentary on the terror attacks on the World Trade Center. Normally a network would be fined for letting profanity be uttered but there was an exception for this case, because the events depicted were beyond the profane and a few "not nice" words from police and firefighters were mild by comparison. Trying to catch all the profanity and remove it would have also sanitized what was happening. You really think I don't understand my signature line? I gave it considerable thought. Just like removing "hate speech" is a greater threat to our freedom than the "hate speech" itself there is a greater threat to our freedoms by disarming people than allowing people to be armed.
The idea of "hate speech" is simply "something I don't like" and it shifts and moves and always seems to ratchet towards more and more tyranny. Same for "assault weapon", it's just a term for "something I want to ban" and the definition only shifts tighter and tighter towards more tyranny. I'll err on the side of greater freedoms despite what threats that might have to my personal safety. That's because nothing is more deadly than a government that gets to define what a person may say or own.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my points so eloquently. A bit redundant. Sigs say so much.
Or as a joke: With great freedom comes a whole lot of work. Most people can't be bothered.
I read Ayn Rand's stuff years ago, but I mostly recovered. Also RAH. There are about two poppy seeds worth of value in there somewhere.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled nothing.
Re: Here's my hate speech (Score:2)
What about your tolerance of Muslim's anti-semitism, women oppression and killing of apostates and gays?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, but we (in a sense of collective wisdom that scarcely seems to apply to today's Slashdot or today's America) didn't need any additional evidence to prove my points. File under redundant.
Re: Here's my hate speech (Score:2)
History will help you understand what originally prompted Popper to say those things. There was a need to counter the Muhamedians, a sentiment that was also found in Russell's thoughts. Contrast Popper with Wittgenstein, and you will better see what Popper was trying to arrive at. (Hint: not postmodernism)
"Discussion" terminated (Score:2)
Ah, the funny old memories. I actually disagreed with the chairman of the philosophy department about the adequacy of his dismissal of the logical positivists. I felt that it was the only time my grade was docked for disagreeing with a professor's opinions. My first degree also included history. I think I've probably forgotten more about the topics than you [253723] ever knew, though I can't recall if I studied the PoT at that time... More recently studying with Michael Sandel led me to Rawls, which was a w
Re: "Discussion" terminated (Score:2)
Nothing. Just that I have been seeing pretentious postmodernists citing Popper to defend Antifa. Thought you might be one of those nutcases.
Public masturbation of 253723 (Score:2)
Z^-1
...AI at work... (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
"What did he say?"
"He said the sheriff is nearer."
"Hate speech" can be anything the censors dislike. (Score:2)
"Hate speech" is just a construct to enable censorship of anything the powers controllig the media, dislike.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common nonsense belief, it has a rather specific definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What good reason could there be for attacking a person or group of people based on their immutable characteristics?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
....can YOU give me a concrete definition of hate speech that is more objective than "language that makes me or someone I like very sad"?
Is Alex Jones bellowing "Sandy Hook was a fraud" hate speech?
Is Maxine Waters telling people to aggressively confront Trump supporters hate speech?
Is a racist redneck saying ""Niggas shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house...you should watch your mouth 'cause I'll break your face" hate speech?
Would it be ok if those words were 50-cent lyrics? (They are.)
Re: (Score:2)
....can YOU give me a concrete definition of hate speech that is more objective than "language that makes me or someone I like very sad"?
Yes, of course. It's not hard unless you're a total moron or being deliberately disingenuous.
It's dead simple: hate speech is any speech that incites or advocates for physical violence against an identifiable group of people.
Like I could say "you're an idiot", and that wouldn't be hate speech, even though it makes you sad.
However, if I said "let's kill all the idiots" it would definitely be hate speech against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I could say "you're an idiot", and that wouldn't be hate speech, even though it makes you sad.
However, if I said "let's kill all the idiots" it would definitely be hate speech against you.
At the point where you make an actionable threat against another person or group of people, your speech stops being "speech" and becomes "assault." We don't need any new laws or algorithms to deal with this, because assault is already illegal and well-defined.
So let's be honest with ourselves - assaultive language is not what most people are calling 'hate speech' these days, and the idea of censoring people online has less to do with actionable threats and more to do with unpopular ideologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you chose Alex Jones and Sandy Hook.
If denying the Holocaust is hate speech, then the Sandy Hook Massacre must be too. Either that, or we would need to figure out a number of dead people that distinguishes one mass murder from another...especially since some of shooters clearly choose their victims based on their skin colour, sex or religion.
Personally, I think the best response to hate speech is more speech.
To be fair neither can humans (Score:2)
That's by design (Score:2)
The reason it doesn't work is because there are no written rules for what constitutes so-called hate speech. That's by design because that's not what it's about at all. It's about power, pure and simple. People pushing the idea of hate speech insist that they be the ones to define it in a "I'll know it when I see it" fashion. Have you noticed that the very people calling out others for using racist dog-whistles, code, and language seem to be the only ones able to hear the whistle, decode the code, and d
Why are they expecting AI to be able to detect it? (Score:2)
Both are subjective, and in many cases highly dependent on context. If you created an AI which could detect it, then the AI by definition would no longer objective, which would defeat the purpose of trying to invent an AI which can detect it.
At best, you can create an AI which can flag speech would might be considered hate speech. Then leave it up to people (idea
Internet has changed a lot, define "hate speech" (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the extreme left, the same extreme left that is pushing 'sane lefties' to the center, has really tried to redefine hate speech in the past 3 to 5 years online.
If you were to say something genuinely horrible like:
"I think all homosexuals are mentally deranged and should be exterminated, I emplore people to go out and murder one today!"
I'd be pretty comfortable saying, that's some pretty shitty, unkind and genuine hate speech.
However, the modern day definition could be something like:
"I disagre
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when leftists and liberals were promoters of free speech? Remember when liberals said the way to fight "hate" speech was more speech? Remember when UC Berkeley actually was the nexus of the Free Speech Movement? Remember the mantra "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Since then, people who use evidence-based decision making have found that it was a mistake to think that allowing hate speech was harmless or even beneficial. There are some people susceptible to the illogical messages of hate speech who cannot be brought to their senses with reason. These are the target audience of the purveyors of hate speech, and enabling hate speech allows it to spread to as many of these vulnerable people as possible, thus maximizing its reach. It doesn't matter if 99% of the crowd arg
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Eric Clanton [washingtontimes.com] who took a bike lock to several peaceful demonstrators?
Yeah, deplatforming. You might want to check out just how quickly FB, et al are at policing and deplatforming the 'hate speech' of EC and his ilk.
Re: (Score:2)
You can brain people IRL with bike locks all day long, it'll never amount to hate speech on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
...if you say something I disagree with I call it hate speech.
Defines hate speech as 100% subjective...
That is not subjective at all.
...but apparently doesn't actually know what the word means
Whereas the ACTUAL definition of hate speech is anything inciting or advocating for physical violence against and identifiable group of people.
"I don't think we should allow muslims into the country" ==> NOT hate speech
"We should kill all the muslims" ==> hate speech
There's really no confusion unless you're a moron, but I guess that's why you're posting AC...
Re: Garbage In, Garbage Out (Score:2)
Oh so advocating aborting fetuses is hate speech. Got it, thanks!