Watching the Watchers: A Comparative Fairness Audit of Cloud-based Content Moderation Services

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14154v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:52:10 GMT
• Title: Watching the Watchers: A Comparative Fairness Audit of Cloud-based Content Moderation Services
• Authors: David Hartmann, Amin Oueslati, Dimitri Staufer,
• Abstract summary: This study systematically evaluations four leading cloud-based content moderation services through a third-party audit. Using a black-box audit approach and four benchmark data sets, we measure performance in explicit and implicit hate speech detection. Our analysis reveals that all services had difficulties detecting implicit hate speech, which relies on more subtle and codified messages. It seems that biases towards some groups, such as Women, have been mostly rectified, while biases towards other groups, such as LGBTQ+ and PoC remain.
• Score: 1.3654846342364306
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Online platforms face the challenge of moderating an ever-increasing volume of content, including harmful hate speech. In the absence of clear legal definitions and a lack of transparency regarding the role of algorithms in shaping decisions on content moderation, there is a critical need for external accountability. Our study contributes to filling this gap by systematically evaluating four leading cloud-based content moderation services through a third-party audit, highlighting issues such as biases against minorities and vulnerable groups that may arise through over-reliance on these services. Using a black-box audit approach and four benchmark data sets, we measure performance in explicit and implicit hate speech detection as well as counterfactual fairness through perturbation sensitivity analysis and present disparities in performance for certain target identity groups and data sets. Our analysis reveals that all services had difficulties detecting implicit hate speech, which relies on more subtle and codified messages. Moreover, our results point to the need to remove group-specific bias. It seems that biases towards some groups, such as Women, have been mostly rectified, while biases towards other groups, such as LGBTQ+ and PoC remain.

Related papers

• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Overview of PerpectiveArg2024: The First Shared Task on Perspective Argument Retrieval [56.66761232081188]
  We present a novel dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society. We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles. While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:14:57Z)
• Voice Anonymization for All -- Bias Evaluation of the Voice Privacy Challenge Baseline System [0.48342038441006807]
  This study investigates bias in voice anonymization systems within the context of the Voice Privacy Challenge. We curate a novel benchmark dataset to assess performance disparities among speaker subgroups based on sex and dialect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T13:26:49Z)
• On the Challenges of Building Datasets for Hate Speech Detection [0.0]
  We first analyze the issues surrounding hate speech detection through a data-centric lens. We then outline a holistic framework to encapsulate the data creation pipeline across seven broad dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-06T11:15:47Z)
• Algorithmic Censoring in Dynamic Learning Systems [6.2952076725399975]
  We formalize censoring, demonstrate how it can arise, and highlight difficulties in detection. We consider safeguards against censoring - recourse and randomized-exploration. The resulting techniques allow examples from censored groups to enter into the training data and correct the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T21:42:22Z)
• Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
  Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse. Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z)
• Joint Multisided Exposure Fairness for Recommendation [76.75990595228666]
  This paper formalizes a family of exposure fairness metrics that model the problem jointly from the perspective of both the consumers and producers. Specifically, we consider group attributes for both types of stakeholders to identify and mitigate fairness concerns that go beyond individual users and items towards more systemic biases in recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T19:13:23Z)
• Are Your Reviewers Being Treated Equally? Discovering Subgroup Structures to Improve Fairness in Spam Detection [13.26226951002133]
  This paper addresses the challenges of defining, approximating, and utilizing a new subgroup structure for fair spam detection. We first identify subgroup structures in the review graph that lead to discrepant accuracy in the groups. Comprehensive comparisons against baselines on three large Yelp review datasets demonstrate that the subgroup membership can be identified and exploited for group fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-24T02:19:22Z)
• Demographic-Reliant Algorithmic Fairness: Characterizing the Risks of Demographic Data Collection in the Pursuit of Fairness [0.0]
  We consider calls to collect more data on demographics to enable algorithmic fairness. We show how these techniques largely ignore broader questions of data governance and systemic oppression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-18T04:50:09Z)
• Reducing Target Group Bias in Hate Speech Detectors [56.94616390740415]
  We show that text classification models trained on large publicly available datasets, may significantly under-perform on several protected groups. We propose to perform token-level hate sense disambiguation, and utilize tokens' hate sense representations for detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-07T17:49:34Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.