Advertisement

NooJ Grammars and Ethical Algorithms: Tackling On-Line Hate Speech

  • Mario MonteleoneEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 987)

Abstract

The definition of “on-line hate speech” covers all forms of expression that propagate, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance, including that expressed in the form of discrimination and hostility against minorities. Moreover, the concept of hatred includes other sub-concepts such as Homophobia, Racism, Chauvinism, Terrorism, Nationalism, Tolerance/Intolerance, and so on. Specifically, on-line hate speech is used in cases of cyber-harassment, to harm others deliberately, repeatedly and aggressively, in a way so to weaken victims psychologically. To contrast this phenomenon, EC has allocated a relevant amount of H2020 funds for the completion of specific research projects, the goal of which is the construction of computer tools to locate, evaluate and eventually block on-line hate speech. Today, the automatic tackling of online hatred is a daily-performed operation on Social Forums like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. However, the algorithms these Social Forums use are stochastic/statistical, therefore not suitable to contextualize syntactically and semantically the words used inside posts. Therefore, with on-line hate speech tackling, statistical algorithms may produce inaccurate or even false results, with rather serious consequences.

Keywords

NooJ NooJ finite-state automata/transducers On-line hate speech Ethical algorithms Rule-based algorithms Statistical algorithms 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Kraemer, U.A.F., van Overveld, C.W.A.M., Peterson, M.B.: Is there an ethics of algorithms? Ethics Inf. Technol. 13(3), 251–260 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9233-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Mittelstadt, B.D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., Floridi, L.: The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. In: Big Data & Society, pp. 1–21, July–December 2016. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053951716679679
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Scoppetta, C., Alfieri, A., Merenda, F., Lay, S., Colasanto, A., Manna, R.: From language to social perception of immigration. In: Mbarki, S., Mourchid, M., Silberztein, M. (eds.) NooJ 2017. CCIS, vol. 811, pp. 213–224. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73420-0_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Gross, M.: Les bases empiriques de la notion de prédicat semantique. In: Formes syntaxiques et prédicats sémantiques, Langage, 15e année, n. 63, Paris, Larousse, pp. 7–52 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silberztein, M.: La formalisation des langues. L’approche de NooJ. ISTE, London (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche, Sociali e della ComunicazioneUniversità degli Studi di SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations