3 ms·

You could just stop all the crap you are doing and believe what you want. If prejudice is already in the question, you cannot gain "neutral" answers. Or nuanced

You could just stop all the crap you are doing and believe what you want. If prejudice is already in the question, you cannot gain "neutral" answers. Or nuanced for that matter... I personally think that the fight against hate speech in the name of minorities is far more offensive than a visit to the darkest corners of 4chan. Perhaps objectively so, since the latter group is more diverse (international audience) and inclusive (low standards) than contemporary academia, which proposes these metrics as a gold standard. But the technical challenge is not solvable as soon as there are different standards of allowed content. Everybody has to decide those limits for himself, parents in case of minors. At least that is true for universal platforms. Some people live up when they get headwind, some people might feel inhibited. The quest against hate speech is intuitive one but still very foolish. In my experience is that people search out offensive material to be offended. There are cases of harassment that are separate from this and often people seem to misjudge this. But AI is far away from making competent choices here. An annotator service like suggested here would mainly be a service to select the sample group to spit out predetermined results. Maybe that is a service Google like to provide. They are also just people pleaser I guess. You could strip people of their anonymity and they will get happier in polls, more content with management. How would you evaluate the change in the data you see?

dr-detroit 5y ago
Those international flags on 4chan are put there by shills to make you feel good about chatting with Europeans but behind the scenes its all internet research agency scumbags sitting in a call center at 55 savushinka, Moscow. US Congress has released mountains of information on this subject. You are trapped in a cult!
beepbooptheory 5y ago
I'm not really sure what you are angry about here because you dont seem to be arguing against the main conceit that bias of whatever form is a factor in constructing these data sets. Is it just that, for you, bias is inevitable and we simply have to toughen up?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  In general I am angry about censorship ambitions and futile and mislead attempt to get rid of hate by banning it from the internet. Even while I am aware that hate can reproduce in a simple scheme that can lead to mutual radicalization, previous attempt to contain it all made the situation worse. But correction is nowhere in sight, it is as if people try to implement insanity by committing to the same mistakes over and over. But I am not that angry and I don't think that can be read out of my comment aside from general disapproval. I would assume that gig workers did not care as much about hate speech as some academics do and did not flag content as expected. This discrepancy is declared as bias. Fine, be that way... > The Google researchers suggest that ‘[the] disagreements between annotators may embed valuable nuances about the task’. On that I agree with the researchers, but would propose that any annotation (hate speech yes/no) would have to fall back to the 'no' and solve the dispute. Otherwise only asking the target will provide any additional understanding. Perhaps asking as supreme court too, but that is not feasible and not even the highest courts are infallible.
mistrial9 5y ago
strongly worded here; insensitivity ("I don't care about you") and disregard ("not in your shoes, don't care") are fertile ground for casual offensive speech and no, it is not technologies job to fix that .. BUT in the real world there are a series of feedback loops, from discomfort, to yelling, to a slap in the face or an arrest by an officer. This works in the real world, where is the feedback in a digital world? The cue here for me was "You could strip people of their anonymity and they will get happier in polls" as an unexamined backing into the feedback topic.. real people have feedback that sticks What "feedback that sticks" is natural in digital realms, and how can it evolve, not dictatorially?
JaimeThompson 5y ago
"In my experience is that people search out offensive material to be offended." Lots more, it seems, seek out people to try to deliberately offend / intimidate others.

dr-detroit 5y ago

Those international flags on 4chan are put there by shills to make you feel good about chatting with Europeans but behind the scenes its all internet research agency scumbags sitting in a call center at 55 savushinka, Moscow. US Congress has released mountains of information on this subject. You are trapped in a cult!

beepbooptheory 5y ago

I'm not really sure what you are angry about here because you dont seem to be arguing against the main conceit that bias of whatever form is a factor in constructing these data sets. Is it just that, for you, bias is inevitable and we simply have to toughen up?

raxxorrax 5y ago
In general I am angry about censorship ambitions and futile and mislead attempt to get rid of hate by banning it from the internet. Even while I am aware that hate can reproduce in a simple scheme that can lead to mutual radicalization, previous attempt to contain it all made the situation worse. But correction is nowhere in sight, it is as if people try to implement insanity by committing to the same mistakes over and over. But I am not that angry and I don't think that can be read out of my comment aside from general disapproval. I would assume that gig workers did not care as much about hate speech as some academics do and did not flag content as expected. This discrepancy is declared as bias. Fine, be that way... > The Google researchers suggest that ‘[the] disagreements between annotators may embed valuable nuances about the task’. On that I agree with the researchers, but would propose that any annotation (hate speech yes/no) would have to fall back to the 'no' and solve the dispute. Otherwise only asking the target will provide any additional understanding. Perhaps asking as supreme court too, but that is not feasible and not even the highest courts are infallible.

mistrial9 5y ago

strongly worded here; insensitivity ("I don't care about you") and disregard ("not in your shoes, don't care") are fertile ground for casual offensive speech and no, it is not technologies job to fix that .. BUT in the real world there are a series of feedback loops, from discomfort, to yelling, to a slap in the face or an arrest by an officer. This works in the real world, where is the feedback in a digital world? The cue here for me was "You could strip people of their anonymity and they will get happier in polls" as an unexamined backing into the feedback topic.. real people have feedback that sticks What "feedback that sticks" is natural in digital realms, and how can it evolve, not dictatorially?

JaimeThompson 5y ago

"In my experience is that people search out offensive material to be offended." Lots more, it seems, seek out people to try to deliberately offend / intimidate others.