Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years (inverse.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: After a question from Senator John Thune (R-SD) about why the public should believe that Facebook was earnestly working towards improving privacy, Zuckerberg essentially responded by saying that things are different now. Zuckerberg said that the platform is going through a "broad philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company." "We need to now take a more proactive view at policing the ecosystem," he said. In part, Zuckerberg was talking about hate speech and the various ways his platform has been used to seed misinformation. This prompted Thune to ask what steps Facebook was taking to improve its ability to define what is and what is not hate speech.
"Hate speech is one of the hardest," Zuckerberg said. "Determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. You need to understand what is a slur and whether something is hateful, and not just in English..." Zuckerberg said that the company is increasingly developing AI tools to flag hate speech proactively, rather than relying on reactions from users and employees to flag offensive content. But according to the CEO, because flagging hate speech is so complex, he estimates it could take five to 10 years to create adequate A.I. "Today we're just not there on that," he said. For now, Zuckerberg said, it's still on users to flag offensive content. "We have people look at it, we have policies to try and make it as not subjective as possible, but until we get it more automated there is a higher error rate than I'm happy with," he said.
"Hate speech is one of the hardest," Zuckerberg said. "Determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. You need to understand what is a slur and whether something is hateful, and not just in English..." Zuckerberg said that the company is increasingly developing AI tools to flag hate speech proactively, rather than relying on reactions from users and employees to flag offensive content. But according to the CEO, because flagging hate speech is so complex, he estimates it could take five to 10 years to create adequate A.I. "Today we're just not there on that," he said. For now, Zuckerberg said, it's still on users to flag offensive content. "We have people look at it, we have policies to try and make it as not subjective as possible, but until we get it more automated there is a higher error rate than I'm happy with," he said.
This might be termed politically desanctioned speech (politically incorrect speech being the sloppy cousin) where you are not protected by free speech laws, but originally, hate speech was a exacerbating condition that made "hate crimes" worse. It was not a thing unto itself. Of course, it has morphed into a thing by itself because no one remembers the original purpose. For example, vandalism is a crime, but not necessarily a hate crime. What makes it a hate crime, worse than a regular instance of vandalism is "hate speech" or the motive behind the crime. The Supreme Court has ruled this is not protected by the first amendment because you lose your first amendment protections by committing the underlying crime. This was a dubious ruling, but hasn't been revisited. Of course, it's hard to commit vandalism online unless you are a hacker, but easy to invoke "hate speech", so everyone wants that policed despite there being no underlying crime. Of course, you aren't protected by the first amendment because the courts have not ruled that FB or Google hangouts or whatever are "places of public accommodation". The ACLU used to fight for expansion of the definition of public accommodation, and FB would probably fit the bill, but they have taken it upon themselves to police "hate speech" instead. Of course, politicians would love all this to be policed so they can pressure FB and Google to stamp out political speech they don't like either, and advertisers would love it stamped out so they can't be tagged with boycotts and the like, but if malls have to put up with free speech, then FB probably should too.
That number is rounded, but it doesn't matter because you're being retarded. You're never actually 50% of anything, let alone 25% or 12.5%. Sure, parent and child actually share 50% on *average*, but in reality, this is rarely the case. In reality, the further down in successive generations you go, the percentage of shared DNA diverges greater from simple math like that. So saying "you're 6 generations away at that amount" is a pretty dumb assumption to make. I understand why this wouldn't make any sense to you. After all, in your family the shared DNA percentage increases every successive generation, so it goes against your intuition.
Besides, I've actually figured out where it came from, so even if that exact number is wrong (which it probably is,) it still has a basis in fact.
Take the case of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. Or that autistic guy who was tortured live on Facebook this time last year. People like you, yes, like you, are ideologically invested in the idea that it doesn't happen to white people.
Afrikaners get murdered on a regular basis in South Africa by blacks still angry about apartheid. Doesn't get reported either.
A lot of the "anti-black hate crimes" that show up in the media turn out to be hoaxes, just like a lot of the time it turns out that when the facts are in most police shootings are reasonably justified.
There is no poor, pathetic oppressed class and a big oppressor class on issues like this. There are just assholes and their victims. Turns out a lot of black people are assholes just like a lot of white people are.
Apparently many have missed to recent Supreme Court decision - There is no such thing as hate speech https://www.washingtonpost.com...