Upload
andre-oboler
View
76
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A presentation by Dr Andre Oboler, CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute, to 12th biennial Seminar on antisemitism of Tel-Aviv Univeristy's Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry.This presentation presents the Fight Against Hate Expert System and what becomes possible with transparency into the issue of online hate.
Citation preview
The Fight against Hate Reporting System
Dr Andre Oboler
CEO, Online Hate Prevention Institute
Andre Oboler, 2015
12th biennial Seminar on antisemitism
Lets change our perspective Our work, even in this seminar, has focused on
individuals and specific examples of antisemitic propaganda
This work is critically important, but it is not sufficient. We also need a big picture view.
An invitation to the balcony This presentation contains real and interesting data
about online antisemitism. This data is not the really important thing in this talk.
Step back, and the implications of the tool presented here, from which the data is gathered, will emerge
A revolutionary change to our efforts in combating antisemitism is possible
Join me in looking at the big picture, the possibility of systemic change. Lets talk about it, and see about making it happen.
WHAT WOULD WE CHANGE?
Data & Analysis to plan mitigation & prevention
For off-line incidents, data is available. Based on this important data, action to mitigate and tackle antisemitism can be planned. There is no online equivalent.
Need: Data & Analysis to plan mitigation & prevention
At the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism we will release a report based on data From our new FightAgainstHate.com reporting tool. Here are some the results:
Need: Data & Analysis to plan mitigation & prevention
23%
41%
36%
Antisemitism by social media platform
YouTube
5%
12%
49%
34%
Antisemitism by classification sub-types
Promoting violence against Jews
Holocaust denial
Traditional antisemitism (not Israel-related)
New antisemitism (Israel-related)
Note that new antisemitism is significant, but much less than traditional antisemitism
Sample size: 2024 items
Drilling deeper the results are even more startling. We see that different kinds of Antisemitism are more prevalent on different platforms. Prevalence is a combination of what users upload, and what action the platform is taking to remove such content.
Need: Data & Analysis to plan mitigation & prevention
16
27 72
Promoting violence against Jews
YouTube
42
105
44
Holocaust denial
YouTube
214
253
120
New antisemitism
YouTube
137
433
167
Traditional antisemitism
YouTube
What does this tell us? The view on the dance floor:
We see specific areas such as violence on Twitter, or Holocaust denial on YouTube which need urgent attention.
We see a more even distribution in New Antisemitism, perhaps indicating that all platforms are reluctant to take this for of antisemitism down, and this is the real split of where the antisemites are active.
We can hypothesis that Facebook is doing a better job than YouTube and Twitter at removing hate (except new antisemitism)
What does this tell us? The view from the balcony:
Being able to make such graphs and comparisons is new now we have transparency on social media antisemitism
We have the list of 2024 items that make up the sample Allowing analysis of messages, sources, networks etc
We can monitor if / when they are removed Quality control data on platforms responses
The data comes from public reporting, so we can learn what content is causing the most distress (leading to the most reporting) overall, or by country Content that most urgently needs to be tackled / campaigned on
The data is always live in the system, and we are offering supporting experts such as NGOs, academic researchers, community organisations, government agencies, access to it This can empower many approaches and actions to tackle online
antisemitism
WHAT WOULD WE CHANGE?
Empowerment for Civic Action
Meaningful action by civil soc. & individuals I do believe and I have expressed that in the Parliament,
that Neo Nazis, antisemites, racists and intolerants are using internet and new technologies, in a very effective way, spreading the virus of hate. The issue is how to react and how the civil society or the individuals can make their ideas a reality in order to tackle this issue. We need democratic action especially in terms of social media and internet. - Kostas Triantafyllos, former Member of Hellenic Parliament & rapporteur of the Anti-racist bill of Greece (e-mail, 9/5/2015)
Need: Empowerment for Civic Action
The current situation Users feel ignored and frustrated
1. User report content 2. The report is typically rejected 3. User gets frustrated and doesnt waste their time reporting next time
they see something
Organisations, particularly Jewish ones, want to engage with
tackling online antisemitism, but dont know how.
New grassroots online initiatives exist doing mass reporting. These are isolated from each other and dont feed into our systemic view of the problem.
Grassroots efforts only have success with things the platforms agree should come down. They cant convince the platform to recognise new forms of antisemitism, or that specific old forms are being wrongly rejected.
Need: Empowerment for Civic Action
Empowering Individual and Civil Society Action An alternative place to report,
where items are logged, and a lack of action by the platform will be seen, motivates reporting
Online groups can contribute to a global effort, confident that the hard cases they cant progress will be tackled by others
Communities / civil society organisations can use the tool as a closed community for their members as the technical part of an online campaign
Empowerment for Civic Action
Resource booklet to support campaigns
Empowerment for Civic Action
WHAT WOULD WE CHANGE?
Empowering Government Action
Governments need help
Empowering Government Action
Governments are increasingly demanding more accountability from platform providers for the content spread on their platforms. The argument that it is all the users responsibility is dead
Some governments are introducing systems of fines These however need to be fair. Ideally it should be like pollution,
where the fine is for dropping below a known standard, and the fact this occurred can be empirically demonstrated.
Some courts have imposed penalties when platform providers have not done enough to address problems Courts can help define the standards through case law, but they
need on which it do it e.g. How many cases are taking for than 3 months to resolve?
WHAT WOULD WE CHANGE?
Focus on Hard Cases
The hard case problem Monitoring by experts is not enough. There is too much data
YouTube: 2,056,320 videos are uploaded each day Facebook: 350,000,000 images are uploaded each day
Some cases are obvious The public can identify them and report them Simple training will allow junior staff at social media companies to respond for these items there is no problem, except monitoring the speed of the response
Other cases are less obvious The public may not be able to explain why the content feels antisemitic Platform staff may not have enough expertise and may reject the reports Experts need to know the case exists so they can explain it to the platforms
The challenge is separating easy and hard cases and using limited resources wisely
Focus on Hard Cases
Implication of Hard Cases
Platforms should initially have more time for dealing with hard cases... i.e. new forms of antisemitism, but after it is explained, next time there should be a different expectation on very similar content.
The failure to learn in a systematic way should be penalised.
We need to track what the platforms should have learned at the global level
Focus on Hard Cases
Dealing with the hard case problem One way to filter for the hard cases is to look at the items that
arent coming down, despite many reports by people who in other cases tend to get it right i.e. Their other reports are accepted by the platforms
We need mass participation both for reporting and for reviewing the reports of others (crowd sourcing) for this to work
We need participation in each country (even if the same content is being reported) in order to bring the case into as many jurisdictions as possible, enabling more officials and more experts to tackle it
We need expert to go through the hard cases and within the framework of their existing organisations, tackle some of them
Focus on Hard Cases
A look at FightAgainstHate.com
Overview
A Crowd Sourcing solution Overcomes difficulties around recognition, with enough eye
balls, someone will recognise the problem
Creates problems of bias, ignorance and game playing
An artificial artificial intelligence (AAI) solution Effectively using humans as agents, as we would do with
software agents
We have multiple people assessing content, but maintain a model of trust in those doing the assessing
This provides quality control and prevents game playing
A look at FightAgainstHate.com
How it works Users report the URL of online hate
They classify it
They review items reported by others
In both review and classification they express an opinion over the nature of the content, and their confidence in their opinion
A points system favours strong opinion that are correct, and weaker opinions that are wrong
Points are adjusted on verification of the content by the system (based on the crowds opinion) or by an expert
A look at FightAgainstHate.com
THE EXPERT SYSTEM...
Examples of Statistics Available
Items reported over time
Increase in items by social media platform
Trends over time by hate type
Time taken to remove items
Average time to remove item by platform
Trends in reports by state/country
Responsiveness by platform
We want to work with supporting organisations to see what information would be useful.
5%
12%
49%
34%
Antisemitism by classification sub-types
Promoting violence against Jews
Holocaust denial
Traditional antisemitism (not Israel-related)
New antisemitism (Israel-related)
Imagine graphs like this, by country, generated live
16
27
72
Promoting violence against Jews (breakdown of items by social media platforms)
YouTube
Or a graph like this to start a conversation with Twitter about needed improvements
10 6
pages & groups
users & items
1
26
YouTube
users & channels
videos
19
53
users
tweets
An offer... Using the system to run campaigns to collect data, and seeing
the raw data your campaign collects, is free talk to me about running a campaign
We are also looking for supporting organisations, we have 26 in Australia but would like to take that global Supporting organisations will have access to the expert system, and
will provide feedback on it, and a statement of support for fightagainsthate.com
Access to the expert system will be free for supporting organisations until October, from October fees will apply to some expert system features, these will help cover the costs of running & improving the system
We are also looking for donations to improve the expert system; to make the system multi-lingual; and more. Any leads would of course be appreciated.
Thank you.
Questions?
CONTACT DETAILS
Dr Andre Oboler
CEO, Online Hate Prevention Institute
ohpi.org.au & fightagainsthate.com
Twitter: @onlinehate
www.facebook.com/onlinehate