Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Stack)   An AI algorithm to fight the new 'hate codes' of the alt-right   ( thestack.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, online hate speech, Hate speech, Code, Discrimination, Machine learning, 2016, The Haters, incorrectly-identified hate speech  
•       •       •

1485 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2017 at 3:12 PM (43 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-03-17 03:26:49 PM  
Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?
 
2017-03-17 04:04:38 PM  
It's a Boolean filter run against a training set, yes?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05443.pdf

Two thoughts.
1. It's only as good as its test cases
2. Those are awful Pearson coefficients.
 
2017-03-17 04:06:24 PM  

dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?


The first amendment only applies to government.

The owners of social media sites are free to delete and ban for hateful trash at will.
 
2017-03-17 04:09:00 PM  
Headline next month: Alt-right creates new AI to design hate codes.
 
2017-03-17 04:11:17 PM  

dittybopper: So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:


Nevertheless there are people trying to change this, referencing European laws as precedent.
 
2017-03-17 04:16:13 PM  
What an Al Algorithm might look like.

24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2017-03-17 04:16:38 PM  

Weng: dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?

The first amendment only applies to government.

The owners of social media sites are free to delete and ban for hateful trash at will.


Yes.
 
2017-03-17 04:18:40 PM  

dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?


I would think the "why bother" is blatantly obvious. Because someone doesn't want hate speech on a website they own/run/etc?
 
2017-03-17 04:26:27 PM  

Weng: dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?

The first amendment only applies to government.

The owners of social media sites are free to delete and ban for hateful trash at will.


Sort of.

It's less true for commercial entities or places of public accommodation.
 
2017-03-17 04:36:20 PM  

Snarfangel: Headline next month: Alt-right creates new AI to design hate codes.


I'm sure these guys are great coders
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-17 04:37:03 PM  

GoldSpider: dittybopper: So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

Nevertheless there are people trying to change this, referencing European laws as precedent.


Additionally, on Fark, for example, there are only so many articles green lit each day. Which means if you can use algorithms to determine which sites are promoting hate, white supremacy, violent islomophobia, then you can stop linking to those sites*. The whole nature of an aggregator could change overnight. As long as Drew's friends are okay with it.

*whitehouse.gov excluded, obviously
 
2017-03-17 04:39:56 PM  

kobrakai: Snarfangel: Headline next month: Alt-right creates new AI to design hate codes.

I'm sure these guys are great coders
[img.fark.net image 850x478]


You'd be farking surprised. I work in software development and have been considering starting a "Hateful shiat my human garbage can co-workers say" blog.

Coastal hippies are expensive, so rural development centers are popular in certain industries.
 
2017-03-17 04:43:39 PM  
I got my taxes to my Skype accountant before sundown. Now I'm going to order some Bing food and watch a Google comedy on Netflix.

Amidoinitrite?
 
2017-03-17 04:45:24 PM  

dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?


maybe if 'skittles taste the rainbow' means 'im gonna kill some muslims' or whatever, it may be worth knowing.  but the the government may not care if they think the only terrorists are furriners
 
2017-03-17 05:10:01 PM  

dittybopper: Why bother?



Because, from TFA: In a context where human-monitored comment/tweet moderation is an unfashionably expensive option, and where there is a notable PR penalty for the unintelligent deletion of incorrectly-identified hate speech, it seems imperative that AI be further developed towards the problem  - or that publishers get their hand in their pockets until it does.
 
2017-03-17 05:11:10 PM  
I'm with dittybopper on this. It seems kind of pointless.  People who want to talk shiat will either migrate to other sites oriented around hate speech, giving them more ad revenue and building stronger communities, or start twisting their codes, which serves the same purpose to them, with the added bonus of flagging legitimate uses of the phrases as hate speech.

Change you can believe in = Kill the blacks
I'm with Her = Hail Hitler
etc etc etc

It wouldn't be the first time something innocent has been appropriated this way.
 
2017-03-17 05:14:33 PM  
It's pretty crazy how only people on the right are capable of creating racist code language, and only people on the left are capable of deciphering it, though.
 
2017-03-17 05:27:20 PM  

kobrakai: Snarfangel: Headline next month: Alt-right creates new AI to design hate codes.

I'm sure these guys are great coders
[img.fark.net image 850x478]


Someone should get those poor souls a dictionary. They just look ridiculous putting improper definitions after words.
 
2017-03-17 05:30:35 PM  
Fark Against the Machine:

In fact, it seems to be happening already.  Fark seems to have moved further to the left over the last year or two, cracking down on boobies threads, lootie, misogyny jokes, etc. Especially with the recent election, I know a few right leaning people (by Fark's new standards) who visit less often or not at all.
img.fark.netView Full Size

Meanwhile, sites where anything goes are seeing an uptick
img.fark.netView Full Size

img.fark.netView Full Size

I think when you start classifying every off-color joke or bit of conversation as hate speech, it's going to push people away.
 
2017-03-17 05:36:46 PM  
Please let it be called the Hunter Seeker Algorithm.
 
2017-03-17 05:47:27 PM  

Weng: dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?

The first amendment only applies to government.

The owners of social media sites are free to delete and ban for hateful trash at will.


Which we will promptly see trolled into uselessness. Not saying they can't, but it's going to be quite comical when the kids figure out the algorithm and use it to cause innocuous shiat to be deleted/moderated.
 
2017-03-17 05:58:51 PM  

foo monkey: I got my taxes to my Skype accountant before sundown. Now I'm going to order some Bing food and watch a Google comedy on Netflix.

Amidoinitrite?


Now I want some Bing food, dammit!
 
2017-03-17 06:01:32 PM  
Holy shiat, /b started substituting google, twitterl, etc into racist comments specifically to retaliate and hurt search results when research into these algorithms was announced.

Mission accomplished.
 
2017-03-17 06:50:48 PM  
Isn't this just dog whistles in written form?
 
2017-03-17 07:23:38 PM  
Why don't these liberal companies police leftist bigotry as well?  The hate on religion and white people and often Jews by leftists is equally as bad as anything you see in the "alt-right".

Oh right - its because some people are more equal than others.  Its always the same with leftists throughout history.  Demonize everybody but themselves for sins they also commit.  Redistribute wealth from everybody but themselves.  Inflict real harm and punishment on people who simply dissent from their worldview by pretending like that dissent is harm.  Progressive liberalism is a quite sickening, cult-like ideology.
 
2017-03-17 07:29:25 PM  

garron: Why don't these liberal companies police leftist bigotry as well?  The hate on religion and white people and often Jews by leftists is equally as bad as anything you see in the "alt-right".

Oh right - its because some people are more equal than others.  Its always the same with leftists throughout history.  Demonize everybody but themselves for sins they also commit.  Redistribute wealth from everybody but themselves.  Inflict real harm and punishment on people who simply dissent from their worldview by pretending like that dissent is harm.  Progressive liberalism is a quite sickening, cult-like ideology.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-17 07:38:47 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: foo monkey: I got my taxes to my Skype accountant before sundown. Now I'm going to order some Bing food and watch a Google comedy on Netflix.

Amidoinitrite?

Now I want some Bing food, dammit!


Bing food will just leave you hungry a half-hour later.  Get some Yahoo food.  Maybe some burritos with Google beans.
 
2017-03-17 08:01:32 PM  

Fark Against the Machine: Fark Against the Machine:

In fact, it seems to be happening already.  Fark seems to have moved further to the left over the last year or two, cracking down on boobies threads, lootie, misogyny jokes, etc. Especially with the recent election, I know a few right leaning people (by Fark's new standards) who visit less often or not at all.
[img.fark.net image 374x312]
Meanwhile, sites where anything goes are seeing an uptick
[img.fark.net image 375x304]
[img.fark.net image 363x308]
I think when you start classifying every off-color joke or bit of conversation as hate speech, it's going to push people away.


Having less in common with stormfront or the chans is a feature, not a bug.
 
2017-03-17 08:02:30 PM  
The police in my town used to use the term "hundred milers" to refer to all the hayseeds from Alabama and rural Georgia who show up to our Florida community any time a big event was going on.  Kids from the sticks who showed up, illegally camped on the beach, then drove home the next day, because of the extra traffic and vagrancy they brought with them.  Then the locals picked up on the term and started to use it for blacks from Atlanta, which was stupid, as Atlanta is hundreds of miles away, and the kids from there do not statistically cause the amount of crime that the rural rednecks were doing.
 
2017-03-17 08:07:29 PM  

Fark Against the Machine: Fark Against the Machine:

In fact, it seems to be happening already.  Fark seems to have moved further to the left over the last year or two, cracking down on boobies threads, lootie, misogyny jokes, etc. Especially with the recent election, I know a few right leaning people (by Fark's new standards) who visit less often or not at all.
[img.fark.net image 374x312]
Meanwhile, sites where anything goes are seeing an uptick
[img.fark.net image 375x304]
[img.fark.net image 363x308]
I think when you start classifying every off-color joke or bit of conversation as hate speech, it's going to push people away.


Maybe this site is largely populated by people who don't want "anything goes" and do not wish to associate with bigots.
 
2017-03-17 08:08:36 PM  

dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?


You're tolerant of thought-crime, comrade?  That's double-plus ungood.  Report to Miniluv for reeducation ASAP.
 
2017-03-17 08:10:30 PM  

winedrinkingman: The police in my town used to use the term "hundred milers" to refer to all the hayseeds from Alabama and rural Georgia who show up to our Florida community any time a big event was going on.  Kids from the sticks who showed up, illegally camped on the beach, then drove home the next day, because of the extra traffic and vagrancy they brought with them.  Then the locals picked up on the term and started to use it for blacks from Atlanta, which was stupid, as Atlanta is hundreds of miles away, and the kids from there do not statistically cause the amount of crime that the rural rednecks were doing.


My point is racist idiots will always find a way to abuse language, and misunderstand words, in order to promote their ignorance.  It is what ignorance does.
 
Oak
2017-03-17 08:19:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: foo monkey: I got my taxes to my Skype accountant before sundown. Now I'm going to order some Bing food and watch a Google comedy on Netflix.

Amidoinitrite?

Now I want some Bing food, dammit!


cookthink.comView Full Size
 
2017-03-17 08:42:20 PM  

BolloxReader: Fark Against the Machine: Fark Against the Machine:

In fact, it seems to be happening already.  Fark seems to have moved further to the left over the last year or two, cracking down on boobies threads, lootie, misogyny jokes, etc. Especially with the recent election, I know a few right leaning people (by Fark's new standards) who visit less often or not at all.
[img.fark.net image 374x312]
Meanwhile, sites where anything goes are seeing an uptick
[img.fark.net image 375x304]
[img.fark.net image 363x308]
I think when you start classifying every off-color joke or bit of conversation as hate speech, it's going to push people away.

Maybe this site is largely populated by people who don't want "anything goes" and do not wish to associate with bigots.


Maybe the site is populated by people who are intolerant of world views that differ from their own?
 
2017-03-17 08:51:40 PM  

foo monkey: I got my taxes to my Skype accountant before sundown. Now I'm going to order some Bing food and watch a Google comedy on Netflix.

Amidoinitrite?


cdn.someecards.comView Full Size
 
2017-03-17 09:34:55 PM  
Soooo.... Looks like maybe 3 people recognized that big net names were identified as racial slurs...
 
2017-03-18 12:49:58 AM  

dittybopper: So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul


If you read even the Wikipedia page on that case, you'll note that it only restricts the entities subject to the first amendment as a restriction in the usual ways.  Essentially, it's a clarification that hate crime laws regarding speech have to have the same structure as all other hate crime laws: the speech has to already be illegal for the additional penalties related to the intimidation motive can be applied.

Under this case, for instance, it would still be entirely legal to upgrade the penalty for making an actual threat to a higher penalty if it's classed as hate speech; the problem with the law in question was that it outright banned things that otherwise weren't necessarily illegal (e.g. burning a cross, which isn't illegal in itself), it in no way weakens or invalidates existing hate-crime laws.  And it definitely doesn't in any way indicate that a non-government website can't curate its user base in any way it pleases (save for existing legal exceptions like protected classes and so on).

// As to the "why bother" argument, it's because most of these people are actual criminals involved in organized crime, and Twitter has kind of a vested interest in not being the go-to discussion forum for farking terrorists, from both a legal and a moral perspective.
 
2017-03-18 01:53:04 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-18 05:43:38 AM  

Weng: dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?

The first amendment only applies to government.

The owners of social media sites are free to delete and ban for hateful trash at will.


Since businesses and private entities are increasingly politisized, it's not long before the first amendment becomes a moot point. Either it's protection is expanded or it's lost.
img.fark.netView Full Size


/Politics and business are no longer separate things.
 
2017-03-18 07:18:32 AM  

foo monkey: I got my taxes to my Skype accountant before sundown. Now I'm going to order some Bing food and watch a Google comedy on Netflix.

Amidoinitrite?

No Yahoos?
 
2017-03-18 10:58:04 AM  

garron: Why don't these liberal companies police leftist bigotry as well?  The hate on religion and white people and often Jews by leftists is equally as bad as anything you see in the "alt-right".

Oh right - its because some people are more equal than others.  Its always the same with leftists throughout history.  Demonize everybody but themselves for sins they also commit.  Redistribute wealth from everybody but themselves.  Inflict real harm and punishment on people who simply dissent from their worldview by pretending like that dissent is harm.  Progressive liberalism is a quite sickening, cult-like ideology.


Oh, gosh!! Haven't even left your own state, huh? You should stay put. It doesn't get any less scary, and you sound plenty of that already.
 
2017-03-18 12:27:10 PM  

GodComplex: BolloxReader: Fark Against the Machine: Fark Against the Machine:

In fact, it seems to be happening already.  Fark seems to have moved further to the left over the last year or two, cracking down on boobies threads, lootie, misogyny jokes, etc. Especially with the recent election, I know a few right leaning people (by Fark's new standards) who visit less often or not at all.
[img.fark.net image 374x312]
Meanwhile, sites where anything goes are seeing an uptick
[img.fark.net image 375x304]
[img.fark.net image 363x308]
I think when you start classifying every off-color joke or bit of conversation as hate speech, it's going to push people away.

Maybe this site is largely populated by people who don't want "anything goes" and do not wish to associate with bigots.

Maybe the site is populated by people who are intolerant of world views that differ from their own?


"Kill the Jews" isn't an opinion I really want to see propagated.
 
2017-03-18 03:36:21 PM  

way south: Weng: dittybopper: Why bother?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort.  There is precisely *ZERO* you can do about it legally:  So-called "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.  It's settled law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.  So working to find such speech seems silly:  You can't sue them for it, nor can you punish them legally.

Plus, if so-called "hate speech" has been suppressed such that they feel they need to start using "code words" to avoid being harassed about it, isn't that enough?

The first amendment only applies to government.

The owners of social media sites are free to delete and ban for hateful trash at will.

Since businesses and private entities are increasingly politisized, it's not long before the first amendment becomes a moot point. Either it's protection is expanded or it's lost.
[img.fark.net image 629x669]

/Politics and business are no longer separate things.


It's all marketing at this point.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report