Social media platforms have a vital role in the modern world, serving as conduits for communication, the exchange of ideas, and the establishment of networks. However, the misuse of these platforms through toxic comments, which can range from offensive remarks to hate speech, is a concerning issue. This study focuses on identifying toxic comments in the Bengali language targeting three specific groups: transgender people, indigenous people, and migrant people, from multiple social media sources. The study delves into the intricate process of identifying and categorizing toxic language while considering the varying degrees of toxicity: high, medium, and low. The methodology involves creating a dataset, manual annotation, and employing pre-trained transformer models like Bangla-BERT, bangla-bert-base, distil-BERT, and Bert-base-multilingual-cased for classification. Diverse assessment metrics such as accuracy, recall, precision, and F1-score are employed to evaluate the model's effectiveness. The experimental findings reveal that Bangla-BERT surpasses alternative models, achieving an F1-score of 0.8903. This research exposes the complexity of toxicity in Bangla social media dialogues, revealing its differing impacts on diverse demographic groups.

Social media conversations frequently suffer from toxicity, creating significant issues for users, moderators, and entire communities. Events in the real world, like elections or conflicts, can initiate and escalate toxic behavior online. Our study investigates how real-world events influence the origin and spread of toxicity in online discussions across various languages and regions. We gathered Reddit data comprising 4.5 million comments from 31 thousand posts in six different languages (Dutch, English, German, Arabic, Turkish and Spanish). We target fifteen major social and political world events that occurred between 2020 and 2023. We observe significant variations in toxicity, negative sentiment, and emotion expressions across different events and language communities, showing that toxicity is a complex phenomenon in which many different factors interact and still need to be investigated. We will release the data for further research along with our code.

Computational social science research has made advances in machine learning and natural language processing that support content moderators in detecting harmful content. These advances often rely on training datasets annotated by crowdworkers for harmful content. In designing instructions for annotation tasks to generate training data for these algorithms, researchers often treat the harm concepts that we train algorithms to detect - 'hateful', 'offensive', 'toxic', 'racist', 'sexist', etc. - as interchangeable. In this work, we studied whether the way that researchers define 'harm' affects annotation outcomes. Using Venn diagrams, information gain comparisons, and content analyses, we reveal that annotators do not use the concepts 'hateful', 'offensive', and 'toxic' interchangeably. We identify that features of harm definitions and annotators' individual characteristics explain much of how annotators use these terms differently. Our results offer empirical evidence discouraging the common practice of using harm concepts interchangeably in content moderation research. Instead, researchers should make specific choices about which harm concepts to analyze based on their research goals. Recognizing that researchers are often resource constrained, we also encourage researchers to provide information to bound their findings when their concepts of interest differ from concepts that off-the-shelf harmful content detection algorithms identify. Finally, we encourage algorithm providers to ensure their instruments can adapt to contextually-specific content detection goals (e.g., soliciting instrument users' feedback).

Wikipedia is one of the most successful collaborative projects in history. It is the largest encyclopedia ever created, with millions of users worldwide relying on it as the first source of information as well as for fact-checking and in-depth research. As Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of its volunteer-editors, its success might be particularly affected by toxic speech. In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia to study the potential impact of toxicity on editors' behaviour. We find that toxic comments consistently reduce the activity of editors, leading to an estimated loss of 0.5-2 active days per user in the short term. This amounts to multiple human-years of lost productivity when considering the number of active contributors to Wikipedia. The effects of toxic comments are even greater in the long term, as they significantly increase the risk of editors leaving the project altogether. Using an agent-based model, we demonstrate that toxicity attacks on Wikipedia have the potential to impede the progress of the entire project. Our results underscore the importance of mitigating toxic speech on collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia to ensure their continued success.

The abstract outlines the problem of toxic comments on social media platforms, where individuals use disrespectful, abusive, and unreasonable language that can drive users away from discussions. This behavior is referred to as anti-social behavior, which occurs during online debates, comments, and fights. The comments containing explicit language can be classified into various categories, such as toxic, severe toxic, obscene, threat, insult, and identity hate. This behavior leads to online harassment and cyberbullying, which forces individuals to stop expressing their opinions and ideas. To protect users from offensive language, companies have started flagging comments and blocking users. The abstract proposes to create a classifier using an Lstm-cnn model that can differentiate between toxic and non-toxic comments with high accuracy. The classifier can help organizations examine the toxicity of the comment section better.

This paper presents a deep learning-based pipeline for categorizing Bengali toxic comments, in which at first a binary classification model is used to determine whether a comment is toxic or not, and then a multi-label classifier is employed to determine which toxicity type the comment belongs to. For this purpose, we have prepared a manually labeled dataset consisting of 16,073 instances among which 8,488 are Toxic and any toxic comment may correspond to one or more of the six toxic categories - vulgar, hate, religious, threat, troll, and insult simultaneously. Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) with BERT Embedding achieved 89.42% accuracy for the binary classification task while as a multi-label classifier, a combination of Convolutional Neural Network and Bi-directional Long Short Term Memory (CNN-BiLSTM) with attention mechanism achieved 78.92% accuracy and 0.86 as weighted F1-score. To explain the predictions and interpret the word feature importance during classification by the proposed models, we utilized Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) framework. We have made our dataset public and can be accessed at - https://github.com/deepu099cse/Multi-Labeled-Bengali-Toxic-Comments-Classification

In Jigsaw's fourth Kaggle competition, we return to the Wikipedia Talk page comments featured in our first Kaggle competition. When we ask human judges to look at individual comments, without any context, to decide which ones are toxic and which ones are innocuous, it is rarely an easy task. In addition, each individual may have their own bar for toxicity. We've tried to work around this by aggregating the decisions with a majority vote. But many researchers have rightly pointed out that this discards meaningful information.

Originally published on Towards AI the World's Leading AI and Technology News and Media Company. If you are building an AI-related product or service, we invite you to consider becoming an AI sponsor. At Towards AI, we help scale AI and technology startups. Let us help you unleash your technology to the masses. This post walks through two methods to identify toxic comments as part of the 4th Jigsaw Rate Severity of Toxic Comments competition.

Text moderation for user generated content, which helps to promote healthy interaction among users, has been widely studied and many machine learning models have been proposed. In this work, we explore an alternative perspective by augmenting reactive reviews with proactive forecasting. Specifically, we propose a new concept {\it text toxicity propensity} to characterize the extent to which a text tends to attract toxic comments. Beta regression is then introduced to do the probabilistic modeling, which is demonstrated to function well in comprehensive experiments. We also propose an explanation method to communicate the model decision clearly. Both propensity scoring and interpretation benefit text moderation in a novel manner. Finally, the proposed scaling mechanism for the linear model offers useful insights beyond this work.

Toxic comment classification models are often found biased toward identity terms which are terms characterizing a specific group of people such as "Muslim" and "black". Such bias is commonly reflected in false-positive predictions, i.e. non-toxic comments with identity terms. In this work, we propose a novel approach to tackle such bias in toxic comment classification, leveraging the notion of subjectivity level of a comment and the presence of identity terms. We hypothesize that when a comment is made about a group of people that is characterized by an identity term, the likelihood of that comment being toxic is associated with the subjectivity level of the comment, i.e. the extent to which the comment conveys personal feelings and opinions. Building upon the BERT model, we propose a new structure that is able to leverage these features, and thoroughly evaluate our model on 4 datasets of varying sizes and representing different social media platforms. The results show that our model can consistently outperform BERT and a SOTA model devised to address identity term bias in a different way, with a maximum improvement in F1 of 2.43% and 1.91% respectively.