NUDGE: IMPROVING DECISIONS ABOUT HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein Penguin Books, 2009, 312 pp, ISBN 978-0-14-311526-7This book is best described formally as a general explanation of and advocacy for libertarian paternalism, a term coined by the authors in earlier publications. Informally, it is about how leaders, systems, organizations, and governments can nudge people to do the things the nudgers want and need done for the betterment of the nudgees, or of society. It is paternalism in the sense that "it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people's behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better", (p. 5) It is libertarian in that "people should be free to do what they like - and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so", (p. 5) The built-in possibility of opting out or making a different choice preserves freedom of choice even though people's behavior has been influenced by the nature of the presentation of the information or by the structure of the decisionmaking system. I had never heard of libertarian paternalism before reading this book, and I now find it fascinating.Written for a general audience, this book contains mostly social and behavioral science theory and models, but there is considerable discussion of structure and process that has roots in mathematical and quantitative modeling. One of the main applications of this social system is economic choice in investing, selecting and purchasing products and services, systems of taxes, banking (mortgages, borrowing, savings), and retirement systems. Other quantitative social choice systems discussed include environmental effects, health care plans, gambling, and organ donations. Softer issues that are also subject to a nudge-based approach are marriage, education, eating, drinking, smoking, influence, spread of information, and politics. There is something in this book for everyone.The basis for this libertarian paternalism concept is in the social theory called "science of choice", the study of the design and implementation of influence systems on various kinds of people. The terms Econs and Humans, are used to refer to people with either considerable or little rational decision-making talent, respectively. The various libertarian paternalism concepts and systems presented are tested and compared in light of these two types of people. Two foundational issues that this book has in common with another book, Network of Echoes: Imitation, Innovation and Invisible Leaders, that was also reviewed for this issue of the Journal are that 1 ) there are two modes of thinking (or components of the brain) - an automatic (intuitive) process and a reflective (rational) process and 2) the need for conformity and the desire for imitation are powerful forces in human behavior. …

Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness

The proliferation of social media enables people to express their opinions widely online. However, at the same time, this has resulted in the emergence of conflict and hate, making online environments uninviting for users. Although researchers have found that hate is a problem across multiple platforms, there is a lack of models for online hate detection using multi-platform data. To address this research gap, we collect a total of 197,566 comments from four platforms: YouTube, Reddit, Wikipedia, and Twitter, with 80% of the comments labeled as non-hateful and the remaining 20% labeled as hateful. We then experiment with several classification algorithms (Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machines, XGBoost, and Neural Networks) and feature representations (Bag-of-Words, TF-IDF, Word2Vec, BERT, and their combination). While all the models significantly outperform the keyword-based baseline classifier, XGBoost using all features performs the best (F1 = 0.92). Feature importance analysis indicates that BERT features are the most impactful for the predictions. Findings support the generalizability of the best model, as the platform-specific results from Twitter and Wikipedia are comparable to their respective source papers. We make our code publicly available for application in real software systems as well as for further development by online hate researchers.

/pdf/developing-an-online-hate-classifier-for-multiple-social-3id5nuz1dw.pdf

Developing an online hate classifier for multiple social media platforms

Hate speech is considered to be one of the major issues currently plaguing the online social media. With online hate speech culminating in gruesome scenarios like the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, anti-Muslim mob violence in Sri Lanka, and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, there is a dire need to understand the dynamics of user interaction that facilitate the spread of such hateful content. In this paper, we perform the first study that looks into the diffusion dynamics of the posts made by hateful and non-hateful users on Gab (Gab.com). We collect a massive dataset of 341K users with 21M posts and investigate the diffusion of the posts generated by hateful and non-hateful users. We observe that the content generated by the hateful users tend to spread faster, farther and reach a much wider audience as compared to the content generated by normal users. We further analyze the hateful and non-hateful users on the basis of their account and network characteristics. An important finding is that the hateful users are far more densely connected among themselves. Overall, our study provides the first cross-sectional view of how hateful users diffuse hate content in online social media.

Spread of Hate Speech in Online Social Media

The present online social media platform is afflicted with several issues, with hate speech being on the predominant forefront. The prevalence of online hate speech has fueled horrific real-world hate-crime such as the mass-genocide of Rohingya Muslims, communal violence in Colombo and the recent massacre in the Pittsburgh synagogue. Consequently, It is imperative to understand the diffusion of such hateful content in an online setting. We conduct the first study that analyses the flow and dynamics of posts generated by hateful and non-hateful users on Gab (this http URL) over a massive dataset of 341K users and 21M posts. Our observations confirms that hateful content diffuse farther, wider and faster and have a greater outreach than those of non-hateful users. A deeper inspection into the profiles and network of hateful and non-hateful users reveals that the former are more influential, popular and cohesive. Thus, our research explores the interesting facets of diffusion dynamics of hateful users and broadens our understanding of hate speech in the online world.

Spread of hate speech in online social media

The spread of COVID-19 has sparked racism, hate, and xenophobia in social media targeted at Chinese and broader Asian communities. However, little is known about how racial hate spreads during a pandemic and the role of counterhate speech in mitigating the spread. Here we study the evolution and spread of anti-Asian hate speech through the lens of Twitter. We create COVID-HATE, the largest dataset of anti-Asian hate and counterhate spanning three months, containing over 30 million tweets, and a social network with over 87 million nodes. By creating a novel hand-labeled dataset of 2,400 tweets, we train a text classifier to identify hate and counterhate tweets that achieves an average AUROC of 0.852. We identify 891,204 hate and 200,198 counterhate tweets in COVID-HATE. Using this data to conduct longitudinal analysis, we find that while hateful users are less engaged in the COVID-19 discussions prior to their first anti-Asian tweet, they become more vocal and engaged afterwards compared to counterhate users. We find that bots comprise 10.4% of hateful users and are more vocal and hateful compared to non-bot users. Comparing bot accounts, we show that hateful bots are more successful in attracting followers compared to counterhate bots. Analysis of the social network reveals that hateful and counterhate users interact and engage extensively with one another, instead of living in isolated polarized communities. Furthermore, we find that hate is contagious and nodes are highly likely to become hateful after being exposed to hateful content. Importantly, our analysis reveals that counterhate messages can discourage users from turning hateful in the first place. Overall, this work presents a comprehensive overview of anti-Asian hate and counterhate content during a pandemic. The COVID-HATE dataset is available at this http URL.

Racism is a Virus: Anti-Asian Hate and Counterhate in Social Media during the COVID-19 Crisis

Hate content in social media is ever increasing. While Facebook, Twitter, Google have attempted to take several steps to tackle the hateful content, they have mostly been unsuccessful. Counterspeech is seen as an effective way of tackling the online hate without any harm to the freedom of speech. Thus, an alternative strategy for these platforms could be to promote counterspeech as a defense against hate content. However, in order to have a successful promotion of such counterspeech, one has to have a deep understanding of its dynamics in the online world. Lack of carefully curated data largely inhibits such understanding. In this paper, we create and release the first ever dataset for counterspeech using comments from YouTube. The data contains 13,924 manually annotated comments where the labels indicate whether a comment is a counterspeech or not. This data allows us to perform a rigorous measurement study characterizing the linguistic structure of counterspeech for the first time. This analysis results in various interesting insights such as: the counterspeech comments receive much more likes as compared to the noncounterspeech comments, for certain communities majority of the non-counterspeech comments tend to be hate speech, the different types of counterspeech are not all equally effective and the language choice of users posting counterspeech is largely different from those posting non-counterspeech as revealed by a detailed psycholinguistic analysis. Finally, we build a set of machine learning models that are able to automatically detect counterspeech in YouTube videos with an F1-score of 0.71. We also build multilabel models that can detect different types of counterspeech in a comment with an F1-score of 0.60.

/pdf/thou-shalt-not-hate-countering-online-hate-speech-2glypkd5c7.pdf

Thou Shalt Not Hate: Countering Online Hate Speech

Hate speech detection is a challenging problem with most of the datasets available in only one language: English. In this paper, we conduct a large scale analysis of multilingual hate speech in 9 languages from 16 different sources. We observe that in low resource setting, simple models such as LASER embedding with logistic regression performs the best, while in high resource setting BERT based models perform better. In case of zero-shot classification, languages such as Italian and Portuguese achieve good results. Our proposed framework could be used as an efficient solution for low-resource languages. These models could also act as good baselines for future multilingual hate speech detection tasks. We have made our code and experimental settings public for other researchers at this https URL.

Deep Learning Models for Multilingual Hate Speech Detection

Hate speech is a challenging issue plaguing the online social media. While better models for hate speech detection are continuously being developed, there is little research on the bias and interpretability aspects of hate speech. In this paper, we introduce HateXplain, the first benchmark hate speech dataset covering multiple aspects of the issue. Each post in our dataset is annotated from three different perspectives: the basic, commonly used 3-class classification (i.e., hate, offensive or normal), the target community (i.e., the community that has been the victim of hate speech/offensive speech in the post), and the rationales, i.e., the portions of the post on which their labelling decision (as hate, offensive or normal) is based. We utilize existing state-of-the-art models and observe that even models that perform very well in classification do not score high on explainability metrics like model plausibility and faithfulness. We also observe that models, which utilize the human rationales for training, perform better in reducing unintended bias towards target communities. We have made our code and dataset public for other researchers.

HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detection

Hate content in social media is ever-increasing. While Facebook, Twitter, Google have attempted to take several steps to tackle the hateful content, they have mostly been unsuccessful. Counterspeech is seen as an effective way of tackling the online hate without any harm to the freedom of speech. Thus, an alternative strategy for these platforms could be to promote counterspeech as a defense against hate content. However, in order to have a successful promotion of such counterspeech, one has to have a deep understanding of its dynamics in the online world. Lack of carefully curated data largely inhibits such understanding. In this paper, we create and release the first ever dataset for counterspeech using comments from YouTube. The data contains 13,924 manually annotated comments where the labels indicate whether a comment is a counterspeech or not. This data allows us to perform a rigorous measurement study characterizing the linguistic structure of counterspeech for the first time. This analysis results in various interesting insights such as: the counterspeech comments receive much more likes as compared to the non-counterspeech comments, for certain communities majority of the non-counterspeech comments tend to be hate speech, the different types of counterspeech are not all equally effective and the language choice of users posting counterspeech is largely different from those posting non-counterspeech as revealed by a detailed psycholinguistic analysis. Finally, we build a set of machine learning models that are able to automatically detect counterspeech in YouTube videos with an F1-score of 0.71. We also build multilabel models that can detect different types of counterspeech in a comment with an F1-score of 0.60.

Thou shalt not hate: Countering Online Hate Speech

With the online proliferation of hate speech, there is an urgent need for systems that can detect such harmful content. In this paper, We present the machine learning models developed for the Automatic Misogyny Identification (AMI) shared task at EVALITA 2018. We generate three types of features: Sentence Embeddings, TF-IDF Vectors, and BOW Vectors to represent each tweet. These features are then concatenated and fed into the machine learning models. Our model came First for the English Subtask A and Fifth for the English Subtask B. We release our winning model for public use and it's available at this https URL.

Punyajoy Saha

Papers

Thou Shalt Not Hate: Countering Online Hate Speech

Deep Learning Models for Multilingual Hate Speech Detection

HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detection

Thou shalt not hate: Countering Online Hate Speech

Hateminers : Detecting Hate speech against Women.