Subjective $\textit{Isms}$? On the Danger of Conflating Hate and Offence in Abusive Language Detection
Curry, Amanda Cercas, Abercrombie, Gavin, Talat, Zeerak
–arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
Natural language processing research has begun to embrace the notion of annotator subjectivity, motivated by variations in labelling. This approach understands each annotator's view as valid, which can be highly suitable for tasks that embed subjectivity, e.g., sentiment analysis. However, this construction may be inappropriate for tasks such as hate speech detection, as it affords equal validity to all positions on e.g., sexism or racism. We argue that the conflation of hate and offence can invalidate findings on hate speech, and call for future work to be situated in theory, disentangling hate from its orthogonal concept, offence.
arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
Mar-4-2024
- Country:
- North America
- Dominican Republic (0.04)
- United States
- Washington > King County
- Seattle (0.04)
- Texas > Travis County
- Austin (0.04)
- New Jersey > Hudson County
- Hoboken (0.04)
- Minnesota > Hennepin County
- Minneapolis (0.04)
- California > San Diego County
- San Diego (0.04)
- Washington > King County
- Canada
- Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- British Columbia > Metro Vancouver Regional District
- Vancouver (0.04)
- Europe
- United Kingdom > England
- Oxfordshire > Oxford (0.04)
- Ireland > Leinster
- County Dublin > Dublin (0.04)
- France > Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
- Bouches-du-Rhône > Marseille (0.04)
- United Kingdom > England
- North America
- Genre:
- Research Report (0.40)
- Industry:
- Law > Civil Rights & Constitutional Law (1.00)
- Government (0.93)
- Technology: