Suum Cuique: Studying Bias in Taboo Detection with a Community Perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Prior research has discussed and illustrated the need to consider linguistic norms at the community level when studying taboo (hateful/offensive/toxic etc.) language. However, a methodology for doing so, that is firmly founded on community language norms is still largely absent. This can lead both to biases in taboo text classification and limitations in our understanding of the causes of bias. We propose a method to study bias in taboo classification and annotation where a community perspective is front and center. This is accomplished by using special classifiers tuned for each community's language. In essence, these classifiers represent community level language norms. We use these to study bias and find, for example, biases are largest against African Americans (7/10 datasets and all 3 classifiers examined). In contrast to previous papers we also study other communities and find, for example, strong biases against South Asians. In a small scale user study we illustrate our key idea which is that common utterances, i.e., those with high alignment scores with a community (community classifier confidence scores) are unlikely to be regarded taboo. Annotators who are community members contradict taboo classification decisions and annotations in a majority of instances. This paper is a significant step toward reducing false positive taboo decisions that over time harm minority communities.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Mar 2022.
Builds on
24 of 48 references.
References · 24
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 724
- 2020The Pushshift Reddit Datasetcited by 289
- 2019Predicting the Type and Target of Offensive Posts in Social Mediacited by 268
- 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 265
- 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 208
- 2019SemEval-2019 Task 6: Identifying and Categorizing Offensive Language in Social Media (OffensEval)cited by 206
- 2016Demographic Dialectal Variation in Social Media: A Case Study of African-American Englishcited by 194
12 more
- 2018Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detectioncited by 152
- 2020SemEval-2020 Task 12: Multilingual Offensive Language Identification in Social Media (OffensEval 2020)cited by 138
- 2021Detoxifying Language Models Risks Marginalizing Minority Voicescited by 106
- 2021Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detectioncited by 95
- 2020Demoting Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detectioncited by 62
- 2020Multilingual Twitter Corpus and Baselines for Evaluating Demographic Bias in Hate Speech Recognitioncited by 43
- 2020Stereotypical Bias Removal for Hate Speech Detection Task using Knowledge-based Generalizationscited by 40
- 2017Like trainer, like bot? Inheritance of bias in algorithmic content moderationcited by 34
- 2020Intersectional Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Datasetscited by 22
- 2021Mitigating Biases in Toxic Language Detection through Invariant Rationalizationcited by 7
- 2020On Transferability of Bias Mitigation Effects in Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 5
- 2019Identifying Offensive Posts and Targeted Offense from Twittercited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.