Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years (inverse.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the curb-your-enthusiasm dept.

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.

24 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. Hate Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is there such an emphasis on this as opposed to any other type of "bad" speech? What makes hate speech inherently worse than offensive, but non-hateful speech, and how do you know if I hate you or not?

    1. Re:Hate Speech by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It won't. I've seen video games ban the word "jew" simply because somebody decided that a word filter was needed because the word is often used pejoratively. I found out recently I'm 2% Ashkenazi jew, and I wouldn't be surprised if some AI caught the word "nazi jew" out of that. Worse, is that hate speech is a constantly evolving thing, and the words and double-speak deliberately change on a routine basis. This is why hate speech rules are so fucking stupid: Since they're going after a constantly moving target, it's impossible to legislate or filter without making deliberately vague rules, and you can easily break said rules without realizing it at all. And how can you be expected to know that something is illegal when there isn't even a written law against it?

      This gives the government plenty of room to get away with abuse. If you don't already have a reason to arrest somebody, you can just create one on the spot. The UK already does this.

    2. Re:Hate Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Hate Speech by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only on slashdot is pedantry a good excuse to invalidate the argument being made.

      Well played.

    4. Re:Hate Speech by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Hate Speech by BeauHD+(+6,+Expert) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years

      What Zuckerberg will likely be "curbing" and what Facebook tends to ban:

      - claims that racism is not the primary cause of poverty and criminality in minority communities
      - pointing out that gender is not a social construct
      - using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person
      - rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
      - speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
      - speech critical or disapproving of Islam
      - anything containing derogatory words for progressive protected classes (but not derogatory words for straight white males)

      Of course, the net effect will be that Facebook turns even more into a progressive bubble. And while that may be comforting to progressives, it makes it hard for them to understand why their favorite political candidates or policies don't catch on among Americans in general.

  2. Problematic by Koby77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?

  3. Do they really need an AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're already doing a pretty good job of censoring conservative beliefs. Most of my conservative friends on Facebook have had their account disabled for time-out periods or even outright banned. They're doing a good job already.

    They do have some automation. I saw a friend post a Pepe picture, and he was banned immediately for that hateful act.

    1. Re:Do they really need an AI? by jimtheowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ".. my conservative friends on Facebook.."

      It is amazing what passes as a "conservative" these days.

    2. Re:Do they really need an AI? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook, like Slashdot and Twitter, doesn't apply the same standard to everyone.

      If you register a new account on Slashdot, your karma starts out low. You can post less often and don't get any karma bonus until you have built up your account a bit. Similarly on Twitter, brand new accounts that get immediately reported are often deleted without further warning, because they have a big problem with bots and people register new accounts to get around bans.

      Facebook is similar. Once your account is established it gets more leeway. But once it has a number of "strikes" against it, posting something like a Pepe meme can get it banned rather than just warned. Pepe memes are mostly racist, particularly anti-Semitic, and associated with Nazism. The idea was to trick people by exchanging the easily recognizable swastikas for a cartoon frog, so Facebook tends to go easy on first time offenders, but after a pattern emerges they become less tolerant.

      Note that I'm not defending Facebook, merely explaining this behaviour which seems to confuse a lot of people (like the infamous "I hate black people" tweet).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Correction by nowwith25percentmore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correction: "Facebook AI will curb free speech"

  5. But muh self driving cars by yuriklastalov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh look, a real world example of powerful entities planning to use AI systems for evil!

    But go ahead, mock the AI skeptics with Skynet and Matrix strawmen.

    We always seem to find ourselves in these little quandaries in our reckless pursuit of scientific development and apparently no one seems to think it's a problem. We can pass righteous judgement on the Soviets for their utterly insane development of nuclear technologies but then pat ourselves on the back for the latest social media spy tech disguised as a consumer product.

  6. Don't worry by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Democrats and the SJW's have already decided what they consider hate speech.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You understand how marxism works, right?

      Society follows some order A
      Revolutionary group 1 fights to change it to order B, perhaps violently
      Revolutionary group 2 fights to change it to order C, perhaps violently
      Revolutionary group 3 fights to change it to order D, perhaps violently
      Revolutionary group 4 fights to change it to order E, perhaps violently
      Revolutionary group 5 fights to change it to order F, perhaps violently
      Revolutionary group 6 fights to change it to order G, perhaps violently ... ad nauseum, or at least until there is literally only one dumbass left, at which point he/she/it/zit/whatever dies and poof goes the species

      If you honestly think there aren't an even more strict bunch of people in line behind you, ready to call YOU a nazi and round you up for reeducation/extermination, then you are a complete moron. The reason smart people say nothing is hate speech is to avoid an endless sequence of persecution.

    2. Re:Don't worry by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

      So Republicans are the only ones left that truly believe in liberal Western values. I guess I will be voting Republican from now on then.

      The whole point of giving peasants like you this little bit of freedom is that you can say what needs to be said to the powerful without risk of punishment because you've manged to offend them. Bring back harsh punishments for political heresy and speech from the masses becomes politically useless.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Don't worry by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Western values" have always included limits on speech, even in the US. For example:

      - State secrets
      - Certain personal details like medical information
      - Credible threats
      - Speech that directly causes injury/death ("fire!")
      - Contempt of court
      - Lying under oath
      - Grooming children for sexual exploitation
      - Encouraging suicide
      - Planning crimes

      Beyond that there is a lot of speech that while not illegal can still have severe consequences for saying, and free speech protections don't extend to private venues.

      There are many grey areas. What constitutes illegal harassment, or a credible threat, for example. But it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion of free speech and hate speech unless you first acknowledge that you never had, and never will have the absolute right to say anything you like at any time.

      In fact, if you want to defend free speech, like I do, you need to understand this because an extreme "everything must be 4chan" position is not an effective argument.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Don't worry by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?

      Medical science too.

      If words had no effect on people then they wouldn't be able to cause stress, depression and other mental illnesses. These illnesses have physical manifestations. Words literally have a physical affect on a human's body.

      Those people who decide to shoot up schools or YouTube or drive a truck into some people were not physically beaten until they agreed to do it, for example.

      So just as society has an interest in preventing physical harm through beatings, and an interest in preventing illness through poisoning, it has an interest in preventing damage through speech.

      You might argue that it's unfair because some people are over-sensitive and harmed by the slightest thing. The law has your back here, it recognizes the concept of a "reasonable person". Just like it accepts that while some people might be injured by peanuts, as long as you don't deliberately feed them peanuts just to hurt them it's their problem.

      I guess that makes science an SJW Nazi.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. If only AI would curb Facebook in 5 to 10 years... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Non-biased AI might do that actually. It should not take long for a decent AI system to figure out how Facebook is a huge waste of time and energy, and flag it undesirable.

  8. translation by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years

    What Zuckerberg will likely be "curbing" and what Facebook tends to ban:

    - claims that racism is not the primary cause of poverty and criminality in minority communities
    - pointing out that gender is not a social construct
    - using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person
    - rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
    - speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
    - speech critical or disapproving of Islam
    - anything containing derogatory words for progressive protected classes (but not derogatory words for straight white males)

    Of course, the net effect will be that Facebook turns even more into a progressive bubble. And while that may be comforting to progressives, it makes it hard for them to understand why their favorite political candidates or policies don't catch on among Americans in general.

  9. Only certain types of "hate speech" by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll just follow the usual SJW rule which is "group X is incapable of $type_of_bigotry because they don't have 'power.'" See, if a black man grabs a white man and beats him to death screaming direct racial epithets along the way, that's not racist to them because the black man is a minority thus has no power, thus cannot be racist. Meanwhile, if a white guy from a trailer park, on SS disability screams "die n----" and shoots a super-rich black man that is totally racist because as a white man the trailer park denizen has white privilege.

    This is why if actual Communists ever, God forbid, take power, I will have absolutely no sympathy for many of our kulaks (historically, "liberals" and "progressives" were about as hated by actual Communists as monarchists).

  10. More Problematic by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's even more problematic than that. If they have an AI algorithm which can understand human language they have the ability to filter out anything they do not like, not just hate speech and to misquote Agent Smith from the Matrix: "what good is the right to free speech if you are unable to speak?".

  11. You just don't want to see it by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:So when was the last time that happened? by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i know you wont, because it doesnt fit your worldview, but have a look at this:
    http://www.ibtimes.com/white-black-crime-vs-black-white-crime-new-statistics-show-more-killings-between-2424598
    Now, imagine what those stats look like if adjusted for total population..

    Of course you are going to play silly qualitative games claiming 'but none of those black on white killings are because of race'
    Believe what you will, however it is pretty common street knowledge that black gangs target whites because they are less likely
    to resist violently, tend to carry more money, and deserve it more - and that is pretty much racism.

    But no, your unverified single anecdote trumps decades of facts, doesnt it.

    BTW, Yes, I know quite a few 'real' (maxist) communists, and even a real trotskiest.
    The more serious 'believers' are very very much in touch with the fact that communism has a fatal flaw in implementation because it
    centralises power excessively, and they know what that directly leads to.

    As you obvious see Stalin and Mao as exceptions, perhaps you would like to point to the happy successful well balanced communist state?

    The problem isnt left or right, it is totalitarianism, and anyone screaming for power for THEIR ONE TRUE BELIEF is pretty solidly in that camp from
    my point of view.

  13. Supreme court says no such thing as Hate speech by bricko · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently many have missed to recent Supreme Court decision - There is no such thing as hate speech https://www.washingtonpost.com...