Now that AI-driven moderation has become pervasive in everyday life, we often hear claims that "the AI is biased". While this is often said jokingly, the light-hearted remark reflects a deeper concern. How can we be certain that an online post flagged as "inappropriate" was not simply the victim of a biased algorithm? This paper investigates this problem using a dual approach. First, I conduct a quantitative benchmark of a widely used toxicity model (unitary/toxic-bert) to measure performance disparity between text in African-American English (AAE) and Standard American English (SAE). The benchmark reveals a clear, systematic bias: on average, the model scores AAE text as 1.8 times more toxic and 8.8 times higher for "identity hate". Second, I introduce an interactive pedagogical tool that makes these abstract biases tangible. The tool's core mechanic, a user-controlled "sensitivity threshold," demonstrates that the biased score itself is not the only harm; instead, the more-concerning harm is the human-set, seemingly neutral policy that ultimately operationalises discrimination. This work provides both statistical evidence of disparate impact and a public-facing tool designed to foster critical AI literacy.

Use this tool to discover more novel angles, voices, and content during content creation. JECT.AI discovers more diverse information to inspire you to create more novel and valuable content. JECT.AI recommends more diverse voices – journalists, scientists and experts based by gender and background – for you to talk to during content creation. JECT.AI offers simple plug-ins that enable you to use its features within your existing work tools. It's not so much a whole new angle that you find but maybe it surfaces a selection of several original and adjacent angles, context and people that you might not have thought of by yourself.