Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases an AI Tool For Publishers To Spot and Weed Out Toxic Comments (bbc.com)
Google today launched a new technology to help news organizations and online platforms identify and swiftly remove 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. From a report on BBC: The search giant has developed something called Perspective, which it describes as a technology that uses machine learning to identify problematic comments. The software has been developed by Jigsaw, a division of Google with a mission to tackle online security dangers such as extremism and cyberbullying. The system learns by seeing how thousands of online conversations have been moderated and then scores new comments by assessing how "toxic" they are and whether similar language had led other people to leave conversations. What it's doing is trying to improve the quality of debate and make sure people aren't put off from joining in.
So all those posts from SJWs can easily be removed. I'm a fan of this.
Well, let's all bow down the moral arbiters of justice then. I'm sure that they'll be right on top of removing speech they disagree with. Then moving onto the useful idiots that cheered this on in the first place.
If you're willing to remove some speech because it makes you upset, there's nothing stopping others from doing the same to you later.
Om, nomnomnom...
Great for our echo chambers, so we can hear more from people whose opinions we already have. What could go wrong with that? /s
>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.
Experience shows that toxic comments encourage participation as they simultaneously reduce participant satisfaction.
You want customers hitting F5 and (hopefully) seeing more ads on your site? Get people's egos involved and get them competing and hating on each other.
I can't speak for everyone else, but all this AI, machine learning, heavy algorithm, neural network, data mining that's been going on for well over a decade now and has become almost normal in terms of tech news conversation is really scary as hell.
For starters, the claim to the quote/unquote "internet" and plaguing social media is it's given absolutely everyone a platform to opinion-ate, alienate, berate, tolerate and flat out hate anyone, any topic, any agenda, any other opinion, idea, thought, preference, look, feel, ect. Let's face it: all that in itself alone as opened pandora's box to a metric shit-ton of people who flat out should not be sharing anything that bubbles in their skull. So now we all sit here with big thumb-tapping or keyboard-clacking loud mouths who can't act appropriately in a digital world.
But I have to say, when the hell did everyone become a bunch of sensitive sally's in terms of taking everything at face value, and buying into some internet handles drivel (or lack there of), hate speech. Look at slashdot and the anonymous coward approach? Hell at least we provide anonymity and low rank to toxic troll garbage here.
All that aside, we don't 'remove' it, cover it up and scrub it away because everyone likes to wave the I-am-offended-all-the-time flag. It becomes part of the culture, ambiance (if you laugh it it, I guess) and overall conversation. We don't un-ring bells, do we? I don't see how that's any different digitally.
Who will be filing the most complaints? The people with money to pay astroturfers and sockpuppets? That is what we have everywhere else, so why would Google's app be any different?
What will the complaints be about? Same thing we see everywhere else, which is anything not pro communist/extreme leftist?
This is a promotion of fascism, not freedom.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This might be new to you, but the left have been pushing for speech controls for years at google. It's not Trump, it's not those on the right. The right are the ones defending free speech, and it's the left who are trying to censor it. Whether it be no-platforming, violent assaults on people, using bomb threats or other tactics to shut down venues. The social justice brigade has been doing this for a long time, it's why github is such a steaming pile of shit now. You can see this when companies start instituting "codes of conduct" which push race/sexuality/etc instead of skill/ability as a core value. That garbage is a antithesis to a meritocracy.
Om, nomnomnom...
If you have a troll problem, then moderate properly by banning. Censorship is not the answer because truth will ultimately suffer.
The definition of toxic will never be a constant, and I can already seen forums looking for revenue streams to favor those paying for certain "filters".
It's not some government control, and it's not something you can't already do on your own.
The issue of "government control" is moot when the companies that control the government also own the social media platforms. See my .sig.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
This solves entirely the WRONG problem.
What is needed is an AI that deletes all first posts. Think about how wonderful that would be. It would work, methodically, persistently and tirelessly no matter how many times a first post is submitted. No matter who submits it. No matter how many people try to get the first post.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
If you think OP is saying up is down, you haven't been paying attention. Or you're not old. Believe me, as a 52-year-old, Hillary looked like a Republican from my yoot, complete with the careful not-talking-about stuff that is uncomfortable. I still voted for her, because better a 1970's republican than a whack job, but let's be honest about who we're electing.
It's about finding an appropriate place to shitpost. That place is 4chan, and the many other shitposting speciality sites.
On the other hand you have sites like Github, which are about collaborating to write software. They probably don't want too much trolling. Needs to be mostly safe-for-work because their business model requires it. So they have an interest in nuking toxic users.
Feel free to argue that Github should change policy, or start your own version (didn't 4chan try that?) and see if it becomes popular. The point is that not every platform has to be an unlimited say-whatever-you-like free speech platform. It's legitimate to require people not to scream profanity in your restaurant, or on your web site if that's what you really want.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The reality is, if someone considers my comment "toxic" because it hurts their feelings. They probably need to spend some time outside of their social bubbles and realize that the world isn't a happy place where people give you what you want if you cry loud enough. The sad thing is, it *is* the left(not all of it), that are pro-censorship and anti-free speech. It's the same situation that we saw back in the 80's and 90's. Remember? When you had the religious nuts holding power in quite a few places, claiming that video games are gonna make mass murders. D&D will make you summon demons. Those things that happened all those years ago. Then there was a very subtle change in the 90's as those on the left started taking up those mantles themselves. Note tipper gore, hillary clinton, joe liberman and so on. Who said videogames will make murders, censoring TV is right, banning some types of music is proper. The last 20 years have shown that the left were happy to take up that mantle. You've got an entire generation of students in universities that believe that "those old people trying to censor things" were right. In Europe, you've got politicians who are trying to hold onto their political power by censoring. Elitists in universities doing the same.
The left currently has an authoritarian and extremism problem. Pretending it doesn't exist, will do nothing to help either side or anyone at all. And the political spectrum right now is in a fundamental shift. People on the left and right are becoming more libertarian, and there is a large segment of the left and a small segment on the right that's shifting to authoritarian. But as it stands right now? The problem is mainly on the left. Check your local university, see how much anti-free speech and pro-censorship policies have been put into place in the last decade to protect peoples feelings. How words have been twisted, where the label troll/racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc has become "anyone who disagrees with my point of view."
Om, nomnomnom...
Huh? How would Eric Schmit -the IT directory for Hillary Clinton's election campaign- allow any kind of politically motivated censorship?
This tool sounds like every PeeCee SJW's wet dream.
I think most people would consider that a toxic point of view to express
Depends on whether you're advocating for the exclusion of white people.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I'm just going to say it... "Toxic" is a social justice flag word. Like over use of "gross" or "icky" or referring to people as babies "shitlords" "edgelords" or "shitbirds" and so on.
Now that we've established potential bias here, we need to define "Toxic"? Is that simply not agreeing with the status quo? Is an opposing opinion debating a topic deemed "Toxic"?