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.

Comments

Re:Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

It's totalitarian, despotic, and unacceptable.

Do you distinguish between totalitarian and despotic, or are you looking for emphasis?

In as much as any limitation to a right is a movement towards totalitarianism you've said nothing of substance. You've failed to address other examples of limitations to free speech - which makes it seem as though you have no objection to them. If so then it seems your objection is simply that this is change, a difference from the status quo and that you're tarting up this motive with a veneer of principle.

Marxists/leftists/commies/progressives/whatever

I see. In the absence of a cogent rebuttal, you'll label me according to the pejorative that best fits and then argue with your definition of same. Little wonder you fear censure.

who demand that we give up our rights

Exaggeration. I have talked about limitations on rights, not their removal. Unless your equating any limitation with the complete loss, in which case where do you stand on libel, slander, truth-in-advertising, contracts, agreements etc.?

simply move the goalposts

Oh, that's what _they_ do, do they?

and demand more

You counter 'argument' is to reject the principle of limiting rights in the case of harm for fear that the implementation is bound to be abused. At least that's the most charitable reading I can come to of your brief rant.

I could argue with it, but it feels too much like putting words in your mouth or creating a straw man. I'll leave it here.

Ok, let's google some of that

[rsilvergun]

Here's the first one. There's no evidence it was a hate crime. Even the right wing bloggers were just complaining the media didn't cover it enough because it was black on white crime.

The second one wasn't a hate crime because it was blacks and a white. It was because it was a bunch of assholes attacking an Autistic man. Again, not Blacks attacking "Whitey". Still a hate crime, but their skin color was irrelevant.

I don't know enough about South Africa to say if you're right or wrong there. The entire place is a hell hole though, and whites are in a minority. And if it's one thing I know about minorities it's that they often get screwed. So you might be right.

I'll counter your final anecdote with my own. My bro married a black woman, and one day when they were dating he ran a red light late at night. She was utterly terrified and he couldn't understand why. The reason was she was terrified of the police, as any interaction with them can and often did turn violent. I've been pulled over more than once myself for driving with black and my best friend, a black truck driver, had trouble getting routes because his dispatcher didn't like sending him down south. And let's not forget legislating while black. Or Mississippi's 2010 anti gang law To be fair those last two aren't anecdotes since they've got sources...

Being black in America is a very, very different life.

I've very confused

[rsilvergun]

did you read the article you posted?

white-on-black killings spiked by 22.5 percent between 2014 and 2015 after years of mostly trending downward. Killings of whites by African Americans increased by 12.2 percent

White people killing blacks is increasing at a higher rate than the other way around. But that said _both_ are increasing. The point the article is hinting at is that the toxic atmosphere created by the right wing (especially Trump and the alt right) are increasing racially motivated violence. The article also points out that a record number of young black men were killed by police officers.

The Article supports the "world view" that blacks are getting the short end of the stick. Also that we (the working class) are being made to fight among ourselves while the rich and powerful take everything for themselves.

And yes, totalitarianism is a problem. But it comes in many forms. here's one of them now.

You _are_ being oppressed. But it's not by Trotskey & Lenin's ghost or the fat chick who runs your Community College's women's study's program and gets all SJW up in your grill. Billionaires and multi-millionaires like the Koch Bros, Bloomberg and yes the Clintons & the Trumps are the ones oppressing you (and me). I wish folks like you could wake up to that fact so we could stop fighting among ourselves and fix these damn problems once and for all.