@raphjd said in Facebook’s ‘Race Blind’ Algorithm Backfires In Their Face: Finds 90% Of ‘Hate Speech’ Was Directed Toward White People And Men:

90% Of ‘Hate Speech’ Was Directed Toward White People And Men

As a white male, my first question is: anyone considered that we probably deserve 90% of the hate?

@raphjd said in Facebook’s ‘Race Blind’ Algorithm Backfires In Their Face: Finds 90% Of ‘Hate Speech’ Was Directed Toward White People And Men:

What's funny is that even with this, the left still tells us that it's white supremacist males who are doing all the hate speech online.

"Even with this"? Sure, because those statistics don't actually disprove that at all.

The reporting says nothing about the source of all that hate speech directed at white males. I have no problems whatsoever believing that white males are on both sides of most of the hate speech online, giving and receiving. Certainly, it's easy to find a plentitude of examples just on this forum.

In fact, the reporting doesn't even claim what their headline appears to be saying. That headline twists the actual information found in the original WaPo article so far around it turns it into a lie.

The Facebook report DOES. NOT. SAY. that 90% of online hate speech is directed towards white people and men. Not at all, by any interpretation.

What it actually says is that 90% of the hate speech Facebook's algorithm detected was hate speech directed towards white people and men. While it was far less successful at detecting the copious amounts of other hate speech that was directed towards other groups.

Basically, Facebook created a white-victimization bot, the algorithmic equivalent of Sean Hannity.

@raphjd said in Facebook’s ‘Race Blind’ Algorithm Backfires In Their Face: Finds 90% Of ‘Hate Speech’ Was Directed Toward White People And Men:

90% Of ‘Hate Speech’ Was Directed Toward White People And Men

As a white male, my first question is: anyone considered that we probably deserve 90% of the hate?

@raphjd said in Facebook’s ‘Race Blind’ Algorithm Backfires In Their Face: Finds 90% Of ‘Hate Speech’ Was Directed Toward White People And Men:

What's funny is that even with this, the left still tells us that it's white supremacist males who are doing all the hate speech online.

"Even with this"? Sure, because those statistics don't actually disprove that at all.

The reporting says nothing about the source of all that hate speech directed at white males. I have no problems whatsoever believing that white males are on both sides of most of the hate speech online, giving and receiving. Certainly, it's easy to find a plentitude of examples just on this forum.

In fact, the reporting doesn't even claim what their headline appears to be saying. That headline twists the actual information found in the original WaPo article so far around it turns it into a lie.

The Facebook report DOES. NOT. SAY. that 90% of online hate speech is directed towards white people and men. Not at all, by any interpretation.

What it actually says is that 90% of the hate speech Facebook's algorithm detected was hate speech directed towards white people and men. While it was far less successful at detecting the copious amounts of other hate speech that was directed towards other groups.

Basically, Facebook created a white-victimization bot, the algorithmic equivalent of Sean Hannity.

@raphjd said in A right-wing reader:

Lawn Boy, which I recently posted about, is the story, in part, of two 10yos sucking each other off and cumming in each other's mouths, as well as various handjobs.
I think it's Not All Boys Are Blue tells the story, in part of the main character and other boys having sex. One of the scenes talks about using spit as lube for anal sex.
These are in K-12 school libraries, quite often in K-5 school libraries.
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bullshit. Which libraries? At what grade schools, specifically?

That's right up there with the "kids are using litterboxes at schools" wingnuttery from a couple of years back.

Well, since my position on this is going to be slightly different from the previous responses – and probably a bit unpopular -- I'll just start with a disclaimer. My comments to follow are strictly and exclusively my own, as an active and long-standing gaytorrents.ru member who has no affiliation with the site or any of its admins. My views in no way represent those of the gaytorrents.ru staff, and in fact are things I'm quite certain they'd never say (or even agree with).

That out of the way, I'd like to state that I'm gay. I'm out and have been for the better part of 2 decades, and I'm unashamedly open about my sexual orientation, when it's relevant to the situation. (And sometimes even when it isn't.)

And as a gay man, you know what I've experienced? EVERYBODY has to deal with "issues and problems and often people being rude". EVERYBODY. I don't care if you're straight, gay, transsubstantiated, or Norwegian. (Those poor Norwegians!) I vehemently reject the notion that my life is somehow made more difficult or unbearable because of my sexual orientation, and find the "gay frailty" argument completely distasteful. Gay people are big boys and girls, just like the rest of us, and they can be expected to deal with things without needing lots of special coddling, hand-holding, or babying. The ones who can't, that's their own personal failure. It has nothing to do with the majority of the community.

Second, I think a reality check is in order. Grow up and stop whining! Boo-hoo, all those rules make me feel like I'm less important than the site admins, like they think they're better than me!

Surprise: this site IS a dictatorship! The admins ARE superior to you, in terms of relative importance on this site! Plain and simple, that's how it works. We all enjoy the privilege of using this site thanks to the generosity of the admins (and the members who donate to keep it running), and we are all their guests. They don't HAVE to listen to anything we say (though they are in fact quite accessible and attentive), they don't HAVE to take our opinions or input into account in making decisions (but they often react to user input in a positive and accomodating manner), hell they don't even HAVE to follow any sort of set administrative policy or explain to us what that policy is (nevertheless they have chosen to very clearly and explicitly define a concrete policy, so that users may understand what's expected of them and the reasons behind any disciplinary actions or penalties).

If those rules are stated in a brusque or unfriendly manner, it's so that they're expressed as clearly, concisely, and absolutely as possible, avoiding any confusion or ambiguity. The rules are fair, if anything quite liberal and generous to the membership, and should be extremely easy for anyone to follow who's willing to participate in maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship with the site – giving just a little something back in exchange for the benefits they receive as a member.

In the past, when the administrative voice of the site was a little too relaxed and "friendly", I requested that the official notices be MORE clear and direct, because there were very real problems with many members not understanding the information being presented to them. The official administrative voice of the site isn't supposed to be friendly, and it's not responsible for holding your hand or being "nice" to you so that you feel good and don't cry because the mean smutty website was rude to you! It's meant to convey information clearly.

I, for one, appreciate the RESPECT shown by treating me like an adult who doesn't need to be coddled. Thank you, everyone who helps keep gaytorrents.ru running smoothly, so that all of us can benefit. IMHO you're doing just fine.

Tom,

Did you mean to quote MasterDave's post, instead of mine, in your last reply? Unless I'm misunderstanding, it doesn't seem like your response is related to what I'd written in the message you quoted.

-Pup

@ThanhBKK:

I have NOT uploaded that torrent, and not even leeched it - plus, it still has a seeder.

…As far as that part of the equation goes, I'll suggest that it's very possible the torrent again has a seeder, not "still". Often, by the time I get around to reading reseed-request PMs, other people will have responded to the request, and the torrent in question will have several seeders already. (Yay G8ts.ru userbase! We rule!)