Search

Identifying misogyny using artificial intelligence is a form of combating online toxicity against women. However, the subjective nature of interpreting misogyny poses a significant challenge to model the phenomenon. In this paper, we propose a multitask learning approach that leverages the subjectivity of this task to enhance the performance of the misogyny identification systems. We incorporated diverse perspectives from annotators in our model design, considering gender and age across six profile groups, and conducted extensive experiments and error analysis using two language models to validate our four alternative designs of the multitask learning technique to identify misogynistic content in English tweets. The results demonstrate that incorporating various viewpoints enhances the language models' ability to interpret different forms of misogyny. This research advances content moderation and highlights the importance of embracing diverse perspectives to build effective online moderation systems.

Pursuit of honest and truthful decision-making is crucial for governance and accountability in democracies. However, people sometimes take different perspectives of what it means to be honest and how to pursue truthfulness. Here we explore a continuum of perspectives from evidence-based reasoning, rooted in ascertainable facts and data, at one end, to intuitive decisions that are driven by feelings and subjective interpretations, at the other. We analyze the linguistic traces of those contrasting perspectives in Congressional speeches from 1879 to 2022. We find that evidence-based language has continued to decline since the mid-1970s, together with a decline in legislative productivity. The decline was accompanied by increasing partisan polarization in Congress and rising income inequality in society. Results highlight the importance of evidence-based language in political decision-making.

The wealth of text data generated by social media has enabled new kinds of analysis of emotions with language models. These models are often trained on small and costly datasets of text annotations produced by readers who guess the emotions expressed by others in social media posts. This affects the quality of emotion identification methods due to training data size limitations and noise in the production of labels used in model development. We present LEIA, a model for emotion identification in text that has been trained on a dataset of more than 6 million posts with self-annotated emotion labels for happiness, affection, sadness, anger, and fear. LEIA is based on a word masking method that enhances the learning of emotion words during model pre-training. LEIA achieves macro-F1 values of approximately 73 on three in-domain test datasets, outperforming other supervised and unsupervised methods in a strong benchmark that shows that LEIA generalizes across posts, users, and time periods. We further perform an out-of-domain evaluation on five different datasets of social media and other sources, showing LEIA's robust performance across media, data collection methods, and annotation schemes. Our results show that LEIA generalizes its classification of anger, happiness, and sadness beyond the domain it was trained on. LEIA can be applied in future research to provide better identification of emotions in text from the perspective of the writer. The models produced for this article are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/LEIA

How can citizens address hate in online discourse? We analyze a large corpus of more than 130,000 discussions on Twitter over four years. With the help of human annotators, language models and machine learning classifiers, we identify different dimensions of discourse that might be related to the probability of hate speech in subsequent tweets. We use a matching approach and longitudinal statistical analyses to discern the effectiveness of different counter speech strategies on the micro-level (individual tweet pairs), meso-level (discussion trees) and macro-level (days) of discourse. We find that expressing simple opinions, not necessarily supported by facts, but without insults, relates to the least hate in subsequent discussions. Sarcasm can be helpful as well, in particular in the presence of organized extreme groups. Mentioning either outgroups or ingroups is typically related to a deterioration of discourse. A pronounced emotional tone, either negative such as anger or fear, or positive such as enthusiasm and pride, also leads to worse discourse quality. We obtain similar results for other measures of quality of discourse beyond hate speech, including toxicity, extremity of speech, and the presence of extreme speakers. Going beyond one-shot analyses on smaller samples of discourse, our findings have implications for the successful management of online commons through collective civic moderation.

The spread of online misinformation on social media is increasingly perceived as a problem for societal cohesion and democracy. The role of political leaders in this process has attracted less research attention, even though politicians who "speak their mind" are perceived by segments of the public as authentic and honest even if their statements are unsupported by evidence. Analyzing communications by members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter between 2011 and 2022, we show that politicians' conception of honesty has undergone a distinct shift, with authentic belief-speaking that may be decoupled from evidence becoming more prominent and more differentiated from explicitly evidence-based truth seeking. We show that for Republicans - but not Democrats - an increase of belief-speaking of 10% is associated with a decrease of 12.8 points of quality (NewsGuard scoring system) in the sources shared in a tweet. Conversely, an increase in truth-seeking language is associated with an increase in quality of sources for both parties. The results support the hypothesis that the current dissemination of misinformation in political discourse is in part driven by an alternative understanding of truth and honesty that emphasizes invocation of subjective belief at the expense of reliance on evidence.

Increased sharing of untrustworthy information on social media platforms is one of the main challenges of our modern information society. Because information disseminated by political elites is known to shape citizen and media discourse, it is particularly important to examine the quality of information shared by politicians. Here we show that from 2016 onward, members of the Republican party in the U.S. Congress have been increasingly sharing links to untrustworthy sources. The proportion of untrustworthy information posted by Republicans versus Democrats is diverging at an accelerating rate, and this divergence has worsened since president Biden was elected. This divergence between parties seems to be unique to the U.S. as it cannot be observed in other western democracies such as Germany and the United Kingdom, where left-right disparities are smaller and have remained largely constant.

We present our systems and findings for the prerequisite relation learning task (PRELEARN) at EVALITA 2020. The task aims to classify whether a pair of concepts hold a prerequisite relation or not. We model the problem using handcrafted features and embedding representations for in-domain and cross-domain scenarios. Our submissions ranked first place in both scenarios with average F1 score of 0.887 and 0.690 respectively across domains on the test sets. We made our code is freely available., Comment: Accepted at EVALITA 2020: Proceedings of Seventh Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian. Final Workshop

Code-switching is a phenomenon in which two or more languages are used in the same message. Nowadays, it is quite common to find messages with languages mixed in social media. This phenomenon presents a challenge for sentiment analysis. In this paper, we use a standard convolutional neural network model to predict the sentiment of tweets in a blend of Spanish and English languages. Our simple approach achieved a F1-score of 0.71 on test set on the competition. We analyze our best model capabilities and perform error analysis to expose important difficulties for classifying sentiment in a code-switching setting., Comment: Accepted at SemEval-2020, COLING