SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
University of Cambridge researchers are hoping to launch technology that blocks online "hate speech" similar to how an antivirus program stops malicious code.
Thanks to researchers at the University of Cambridge, the largest social media companies in the world may soon have the ability to preemptively quarantine content classified by an algorithm as "hate speech"." On October 14, 2019, researcher Stephanie Ullmann and professor Marcus Tomalin published a proposal in the Ethics and Information Technology journal promoting an invention that they claim could accomplish this goal without infringing on individual rights of free speech. Their proposal involves software that uses an algorithm to identify "hate speech" in much the same way an antivirus program detects malware. It would then be up to the viewer of such content to either leave it in quarantine or view it.
The basic premise is that online "hate speech" is as harmful in its way as other forms of harm (physical, emotional, financial...), and social media companies should intercept it before it can do that harm, rather than post-facto by review.
Tomalin's proposal would use a sophisticated algorithm which would evaluate not just the content itself, but also all content posted by the user to determine if a post might be classifiable as "hate speech". If not classified as potential "hate speech", the post occupies the social media feed like any regular post. If the algorithm flags it as possible "hate speech", it will then flag the post as potential hate speech, making it so that readers must opt-in to view the post. A graph from the proposal illustrates this process.
The alert to the reader will identify the type of "hate speech" potentially classified in the content as well as a "Hate O'Meter" to show how offensive the post is likely to be.
The goal of the researchers is to have a working prototype available in early 2020 and, assuming success and subsequent social media company adoptions, intercepting traffic in time for the 2020 elections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:14PM (6 children)
It is if you can argue it's within a reasonable limit. Common law countries define reasonable [wikipedia.org] in a way that would clearly exclude Justin Trudeau and all of Ontario ;P
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:23PM (5 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:54PM (4 children)
And it is now readily apparent you don't know what common law is. Canada is a common law system, even within the criminal sphere. The sole exception is Quebec's use of a Napoleonic system for their provincial laws.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:06PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:13PM (1 child)
Seems you're correct. [wikipedia.org]
Where can I find the definition of "reasonable" for the purposes of the Criminal Code? If there's no definition then interpretation is surely a matter of common law?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 04 2020, @06:09AM
Nope, you are, as I said, both wrong. "Criminal law is uniform throughout Canada. It is based on the constitution and federal statutory Criminal Code, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada," from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Canadian_federal_law [wikipedia.org] The Supreme Court of Canada interprets the law and promulgates precedent rulings that are binding on lower courts. Such law made by judges is the definition of a common law system. For example, most standard defenses to crimes are in the common law instead of being codified.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:07PM
Correct. I meant Quebec, my Canada is bad but I guess the joke worked anyway.