Author Topic: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online  (Read 883 times)

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59513
  • Gender: Male
Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« on: February 23, 2017, 06:00:44 AM »
Soooo, Google doesn't like the First Amendment?

Let's be honest here, Google claims they're trying to help sites that publish "News" (Fake News) should be able to scour the comments section and weed out "undesirable speech".
They claim they're targeting hate speech, trigger comments that anger and distort the conversation, when it truth, they mean dissenting speech.
Truth is and we all know it from experience, the only triggers are from leftists trolls trying to derail the conversation, something Google could care less about

Quote
Alphabet Inc's Google (GOOGL.O) and subsidiary Jigsaw launched on Thursday a new technology to help news organizations and online platforms identify abusive comments on their websites.

The technology, called Perspective, will review comments and score them based on how similar they are to comments people said were "toxic" or likely to make them leave a conversation.

It has been tested on the New York Times and the companies hope to extend it to other news organizations such as The Guardian and The Economist as well as websites.

"News organizations want to encourage engagement and discussion around their content, but find that sorting through millions of comments to find those that are trolling or abusive takes a lot of money, labor, and time. As a result, many sites have shut down comments altogether," Jared Cohen, President of Jigsaw, which is part of Alphabet, wrote in a blog post.

"But they tell us that isn’t the solution they want. We think technology can help."

Perspective examined hundreds of thousands of comments that had been labeled as offensive by human reviewers to learn how to spot potentially abusive language.

CJ Adams, Jigsaw Product Manager, said the company was open to rolling out the technology to all platforms, including larger ones such as Facebook (FB.O) and Twitter (TWTR.N) where trolling can be a major headache.

The technology could in the future be expanded to trying to identify personal attacks or off-topic comments too, Cohen said.

I hope these leftist morons do it, I really do, because the more the left censors, the more people will move to the right for the truth and freedom of speech.
Our Founders warned of people like this and their invasive cancer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-news-idUSKBN1621C1?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtechnologyNews+%28Reuters+Technology+News%29


Adjusted font size address.
walks
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 07:11:18 AM by walkstall »
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2017, 06:48:15 AM »
So when I read the post, my first reaction was, "Who gets to define what hate speech is?" Certainly a slippery slope if someone is dumb enough to go down that road.

Then said, "What the heck, I'll "Google" for a definition of hate speech to see what pops up. Look at what the browser came up with.



Such a good likeness of POTUS - don't you think? That's not divisive ... is it! We need to carpet bomb these liberals somehow. But they hide among the public. It's like another war on terror - but psychological warfare in this case. So carpet bombs don't work. In insurgency warfare in this case - that's an important point.  Hopefully they'll undo themselves so those who value the republic can work on more important things.

What does insurgency warfare look like in the political realm? They hide among the moderates then show their faces to strike once in awhile. One way to fight it is to surround them, separate the sheep (moderates) from the goats (bad guys), and exterminate the goats. Extermination in political circles means to marginalize them - make them not matter. Kinda like what Mc Cain is experiencing and trying to shake. The Libs are still digging in deeper so we should let them go until they bottom out - then they'll be easier to round up.



Adjusted png size.
walks




« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 07:31:41 AM by walkstall »

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23884
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2017, 07:33:09 AM »
So when I read the post, my first reaction was, "Who gets to define what hate speech is?" Certainly a slippery slope if someone is dumb enough to go down that road.

Then said, "What the heck, I'll "Google" for a definition of hate speech to see what pops up. Look at what the browser came up with.



Such a good likeness of POTUS - don't you think? That's not divisive ... is it! We need to carpet bomb these liberals somehow. But they hide among the public. It's like another war on terror - but psychological warfare in this case. So carpet bombs don't work. In insurgency warfare in this case - that's an important point.  Hopefully they'll undo themselves so those who value the republic can work on more important things.

What does insurgency warfare look like in the political realm? They hide among the moderates then show their faces to strike once in awhile. One way to fight it is to surround them, separate the sheep (moderates) from the goats (bad guys), and exterminate the goats. Extermination in political circles means to marginalize them - make them not matter. Kinda like what Mc Cain is experiencing and trying to shake. The Libs are still digging in deeper so we should let them go until they bottom out - then they'll be easier to round up.




Hate speech is like Beauty it's in the mind of the beholder.  More so in the minds of snowflake and Dem's.   
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2017, 07:38:23 AM »
So when I read the post, my first reaction was, "Who gets to define what hate speech is?" Certainly a slippery slope if someone is dumb enough to go down that road.

Then said, "What the heck, I'll "Google" for a definition of hate speech to see what pops up. Look at what the browser came up with.



I'm working to figure out how to embed an image ... so stand by for a future update.

So the example that is posted is POTUS. That's not divisive ... is it! We need to carpet bomb these liberals somehow. But they hide among the public. It's like another war on terror - but psychological warfare in this case. Not sure what a psychological carpet bomb looks like. Hopefully they'll undo themselves so those who value the republic can work on more important things.
Therein lies the problem. Case in point, you were offended by something Boo said, (no judgment here, just a descriptor), then suddenly the forum is on you. Not because they necessarily agree with Boo, but rather his right to express his opinion (most agreed with anyway).
But the point is, your claim of offense is a form of censorship in guilting one into submission, as the left does daily.
For example, when Pamela Geller decided to promote a "Draw Muhamed Day' in Texas, the left called it inflammatory and an "exercise in bigotry".

Could this be a valid interpretation? Sure, but regardless, it's still protected speech, but as you pointed out, it's a slippery slope, so the moment we allow any censoring of speech, we create precedent as well as a point from which to judge all speech thereafter, and as history demonstrates, it's a short road to an end.
Ya gotta love their lead in, but where were they when Piss Christ was lauded as art? Right there claiming it was protected speech, yet never once did they vilify the creator of such trash and call it an exercise in bigotry.
No, the left only wants censorship for one side of the debate.

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. [There is also no question that however offensive the images[, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2017, 08:37:30 AM »
Therein lies the problem. Case in point, you were offended by something Boo said, (no judgment here, just a descriptor), then suddenly the forum is on you. Not because they necessarily agree with Boo, but rather his right to express his opinion (most agreed with anyway).
But the point is, your claim of offense is a form of censorship in guilting one into submission, as the left does daily.
For example, when Pamela Geller decided to promote a "Draw Muhamed Day' in Texas, the left called it inflammatory and an "exercise in bigotry".

Could this be a valid interpretation? Sure, but regardless, it's still protected speech, but as you pointed out, it's a slippery slope, so the moment we allow any censoring of speech, we create precedent as well as a point from which to judge all speech thereafter, and as history demonstrates, it's a short road to an end.
Ya gotta love their lead in, but where were they when Piss Christ was lauded as art? Right there claiming it was protected speech, yet never once did they vilify the creator of such trash and call it an exercise in bigotry.
No, the left only wants censorship for one side of the debate.

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. [There is also no question that however offensive the images[, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

I haven't sifted through your links and references yet, but here are initial thoughts.

I'm not sure the First Amendment has it quite right but unsure how to do better - because free speech at any cost seems like it doesn't work; there is some assumption of rationality behind it. There are several examples in your post of when it seems that the consequences of the free speech aren't worth the result - heinous to others. But as soon as you start metering free speech by the consequences, censorship can (probably will) get out of control.

So what we have now is free speech where some of it will cause harsh reaction - sometimes for very good reason. Then some may choose to act out because they believe that their action is worth the consequence of the law. Fictional Example: Someone killing an artist that did some horrendously offensive piece of art because it violated their belief and the consequence of execution was worth it to them.

I'm not sure there is a middle ground - a way to moderate the extremes. Seems like it would involve checks and balances - voting by some normative group, like congress is supposed to be, to address extreme cases when material incites breach of the law by masses. But then you get back to censorship by biased groups in one time period or another. Even when I write this, I feel it going wrong. 

As it is, we have the First Amendment set the standard, rule of law to bound reaction, and we live with the risk of having to deal with these extreme points of view as you identified. How would you moderate the extremes?



Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2017, 09:36:59 AM »
I haven't sifted through your links and references yet, but here are initial thoughts.
No need, what I quoted was sufficient for the point at hand.

Quote
I'm not sure the First Amendment has it quite right but unsure how to do better -

Our Founders knew the answer based on, not only history but personal experience.

because free speech at any cost seems like it doesn't work; there is some assumption of rationality behind it. There are several examples in your post of when it seems that the consequences of the free speech aren't worth the result - heinous to others. But as soon as you start metering free speech by the consequences, censorship can (probably will) get out of control.
Again, this comes back to your being offended. Using offended claims as a way of designating what speech should or should not be allowed leads to ones claim of feigned offense, or rather lying about being offended to curtail ones right to speak an opinion.
Now do you see why I called attention to your claim of being personally offended?
So what to do? Well the Founders had the answer based on millennia of experience before them, rule that all speech be protected as a gift of God.

Quote
So what we have now is free speech where some of it will cause harsh reaction - sometimes for very good reason. Then some may choose to act out because they believe that their action is worth the consequence of the law. Fictional Example: Someone killing an artist that did some horrendously offensive piece of art because it violated their belief and the consequence of execution was worth it to them.
Kind of like an out of control emotional outburst? We would like to think man had advanced beyond emotional kneejerk reaction, which is why the Founders errored on the side of open and unregulated speech.

Quote
I'm not sure there is a middle ground - a way to moderate the extremes. Seems like it would involve checks and balances - voting by some normative group, like congress is supposed to be, to address extreme cases when material incites breach of the law by masses. But then you get back to censorship by biased groups in one time period or another. Even when I write this, I feel it going wrong. 

As it is, we have the First Amendment set the standard, rule of law to bound reaction, and we live with the risk of having to deal with these extreme points of view as you identified. How would you moderate the extremes?

Where would you start, religion and race are off limits? OK, let's say that were the case, I start a new religion of Conservative principles, and to disagree with our principles would be considered a form of hate speech, so off to jail with you.
See just how absurd limiting speech can be?
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline je_freedom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1979
  • Gender: Male
  • I think, therefore I am... a misfit!
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2017, 08:05:45 PM »
We need to carpet bomb these liberals somehow. But they hide among the public. It's like another war on terror - but psychological warfare in this case. So carpet bombs don't work.

Speaking of "hate speech" -
how long will it be before the left declares the term "carpet bomb" to be misogynist?
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-- Barry Goldwater

Offline zewazir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • TANSTAAFL!
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2017, 09:01:42 PM »
The concept of hate speech and hate crime was initiated and promoted for one purpose, and one purpose only: to provide an "acceptable" end run around the principles of free speech. Note how rapidly the definition of hate was corrupted to simply mean disagreement the with progressive agenda. If you disagree with affirmative action, you hate minorities and your ideas need to be so classified that they may not be spread.  If you disagree with open borders, you are a racist hater and your ideas should not be spread to others. If you disagree with welfare, you hate the poor, and since the majority of poor are (by design) minorities, you are racist and your ideas should be repressed to avoid further damage to society.  It's a lie and always has been a lie.  Progressives hate freedom in any form, and will repress it in any way, using any method they can dream up.

Offline The Boo Man...

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17156
  • Gender: Male
  • Trees are just tall weeds children climb
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2017, 09:40:45 PM »
I assume Google will be defining hate speech...
It's not the size of your balls but the direction they're swinging....]

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2017, 06:21:35 AM »
I assume Google will be defining hate speech...
Apparently, they already have. Anything they don't like.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2017, 06:34:42 AM »
Apparently, they already have. Anything they don't like.

Truth is always first victim.


Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2017, 06:39:37 AM »
Truth is always first victim.


Bet that comes up under a search for culture and politics.
I guess one of the things we'll have to make a priority in schools, is critical thinking, question everything, especially the left.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Re: Google launches robo-tool to flag hate speech online
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2017, 06:46:01 AM »
If I were Trump I would order the Department of Education to mandate (and fund!) the appropriate nonpartisan factual textbooks to fully educate our future generations on how America works politically. We need to teach kids civics. Not party line, but Constitution.

I'd order one full academic year, be it two or three semesters depending on the school's current set-up. The better-educated they are, the better for America.

 

Powered by EzPortal