Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday May 01 2018, @11:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the consequences-will-never-be-the-same dept.

Instagram will filter out bullying comments

At the F8 conference today, it was announced that Instagram will filter out bullying comments from posts, starting today. This includes anything "intended to harass or upset people in our community," the platform's CEO said in a post. Doing this will ensure Instagram remains "an inclusive, supportive place for all voices," he wrote.

From our CEO kevin "Starting today, Instagram will filter bullying comments intended to harass or upset people in our community. To be clear: we don't tolerate bullying on Instagram. Our Community Guidelines have always prohibited bullying on our platform, and I'm proud to announce this next step in our ongoing commitment to keeping Instagram an inclusive, supportive place for all voices. We also believe in promoting kindness — encouraging our community to support one another both on and off Instagram. On Saturday we will host a Kindness Prom to celebrate people on our platform who are spreading positivity. These young leaders are inspiring their peers by helping kindness, acceptance and support grow on Instagram and in the world. Since Mike and I founded Instagram, it's been our goal to make it a safe place for self-expression and to foster kindness within the community. This update is just the next step in our mission to deliver on that promise."

The filter will be enabled automatically, but can be disabled. Regardless of a user's settings, the filter will be able to automatically flag comments for official review. Facebook's DeepText machine learning algorithm is used to review words for context and meaning.

Also at NYT and The Verge.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @07:43PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @07:43PM (#674721)

    I've always heard the word used to mean one specific person persistantly harming another specific person frequently over a long period of time without good reason, with malicious intent, and almost always in such a way as violates the second persons rights, though not necessarily.

    USAians seem to use it to mean 'be mean at least once'.

    The dictionary entry from google is entirely disconnected from both my experience of the words use and the impression I have received of how USAians use the word.

    What the fuck does the word bully mean in the USA?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @12:46AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @12:46AM (#674858)

    As far as I could ever tell growing up here it means what you think it means.

    Per Merriam Webster

    a : a blustering, browbeating person; especially : one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable. As in - tormented by the neighborhood bully
    b : pimp

    I never heard the pimp version, but not surprising. Now I'm curious what definition you found.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:42AM (#674892)

      Google gave me:

      n. "a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker."

      This doesn't require repeated actions against one or more people, and the repeated nature of bullying is a very large part of the word as I've heard it used.
      As a minor point, it's also so general that it counts almost all judges as bullies, which seems too absurd to be intentional so I'll ignore it.
      <the general concept conveyed + repetition wrt the target + immorality + volition> is fairly close to my understanding, but far from what's written.

      v. "[to] use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something."

      So beating some kid up daily in school for pleasure doesn't count, but subpoenaing CCTV footage does? Surely not the intended definition, though it is the one they wrote and which editors (presumably) accepted.

      I know I'm being too literal, and that dictionaries don't actually try to define words but instead try to give a decent but lacking-by-practical-necessity understanding to be refined through further experience with how the word is used, but damn I feel they could have done a better job than what almost amounts to ``bully v. to intentionally intimidate while in a better position''.

      I'm pretty suprised repetition doesn't actually seem to be part of the definition, I wonder if that's regional or if I just got it wrong while young and the mistake stuck with me. I'm fairly sure the lack of the requirement for the action to be unjust was just forgotten and was intended, even though it seems odd to forget one of the most important defining characteristics.