RE: Washington Post Report Finds Majority of “Hate Speech” on Facebook is Anti-White and Anti-Male

The most disturbing part is that Washington Post found the report to be a problem, not because of the hate speech itself, but because its "race-blindedness" harms women and people of color. I wish I was kidding but I'm not.

That is not at all what the WaPo article said, and surprise, a blog like red voice media (?) gets it incredibly wrong, perhaps intentionally.

55 percent of the content users reported to Facebook as most harmful was directed at just four minority groups: Blacks, Muslims, the LGBTQ community and Jews, according to the documents.

So, the majority of reported content is against those four minority groups, but the 90% of what the algorithm catches are "statements of contempt, inferiority, and disgust directed at white people and men"? Sounds like an algorithm problem to me, and it's more than likely not a mistake.

Majority of reported content. It's well-known that people are far more likely to report hate speech if it targets minorities. The algorithm doesn't have that bias however.

Second, WP did not find it was only catching hatred of white people and men. Read the actual article and you'll see that their claim is that the algorithm's "race-blindedness" is a problem because hate speech towards minorities is more serious (in their opinion).

This is an actual quote from the WP article:

The algorithms were over-indexing on detecting less harmful content that occurred more frequently, such as “men are pigs,”

Let's just say that WP's opinion that statements like "men are pigs" should be considered "less harmful content" is subjective at best, hilarious and bigoted at worst.

The whole article is one massive rant about why the algorithm shouldn't be "race-blind" and hatred against certain groups should not be treated equally as others.