The idea that “hate speech” is something that can be objectively identified is taken for granted on the Left, which is increasingly open about its authoritarian desire to destroy the freedom of speech and regulate what speech is acceptable in the public square and what speech is not. Honest analysis of the motivating ideology behind jihad terror has been stigmatized for years as “Islamophobic hate speech,” despite the fact that it is absolutely nothing like the examples of “Islamophobic hate speech” given in this article. When Bertie Vidgen and Taha Yasseri succeed in silencing that analysis, the jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded. But hey, as Britain collapses into chaos, at least there will be no “Islamophobic hate speech.”
“How we built a tool that detects the strength of Islamophobic hate speech on Twitter,” by Bertie Vidgen and Taha Yasseri, The Conversation, January 2, 2019:
In a landmark move, a group of MPs recently published a working definition of the term Islamophobia. They defined it as “rooted in racism”, and as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
In our latest working paper, we wanted to better understand the prevalence and severity of such Islamophobic hate speech on social media. Such speech harms targeted victims, creates a sense of fear among Muslim communities, and contravenes fundamental principles of fairness. But we faced a key challenge: while extremely harmful, Islamophobic hate speech is actually quite rare.
Billions of posts are sent on social media every day, and only a very small number of them contain any sort of hate. So we set about creating a classification tool using machine learning which automatically detects whether or not tweets contain Islamophobia.
Detecting Islamophobic hate speech
Huge strides have been made in using machine learning to classify more general hate speech robustly, at scale and in a timely manner. In particular, a lot of progress has been made to categorise content based on whether it is hateful or not.
But Islamophobic hate speech is much more nuanced and complex than this. It runs the gamut from verbally attacking, abusing and insulting Muslims to ignoring them; from highlighting how they are perceived to be “different” to suggesting they are not legitimate members of society; from aggression to dismissal. We wanted to take this nuance into account with our tool so that we could categorise whether or not content is Islamophobic and whether the Islamophobia is strong or weak.
We defined Islamophobic hate speech as “any content which is produced or shared which expresses indiscriminate negativity against Islam or Muslims”. This differs from but is well-aligned with MPs’ working definition of Islamophobia, outlined above. Under our definitions, strong Islamophobia includes statements such as “all Muslims are barbarians”, while weak Islamophobia includes more subtle expressions, such as “Muslims eat such strange food”.
Being able to distinguish between weak and strong Islamophobia will not only help us to better detect and remove hate, but also to understand the dynamics of Islamophobia, investigate radicalisation processes where a person becomes progressively more Islamophobic, and provide better support to victims….
Detecting Islamophobic hate speech is a real and pressing challenge for governments, tech companies and academics. Sadly, this is a problem that will not go away – and there are no simple solutions. But if we are serious about removing hate speech and extremism from online spaces, and making social media platforms safe for all who use them, then we need to start with the appropriate tools. Our work shows it’s entirely possible to make these tools – to not only automatically detect hateful content but to also do so in a nuanced and fine-grained manner.
Buraq says
Soon, it will be a crime to publicly say, “I am not a Muslim. I will never become a Muslim. I reject Islam 100%.” This ‘crime’ might be called the “anti-Shahada” statement. But I say it every day, anyway!
mortimer says
Let him apply the ‘HATE SPEECH’ criteria to AL WALAA WAL BARAA … Islam’s official apartheid doctrine.
‘Baraa’ is HATRED directed towards Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love towards Muslims). Baraa is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed (Islamic faith) and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (i.e. wrong worshippers). So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said:
“There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite (kufr=wrong belief)- any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.” (W-B is ‘Islamic apartheid’)
– Dr. Muhammad Saeed Al-Qahtaani said: “Thus, it is clear that Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara calls on Muslims to “love” their fellow Muslims and hate the non-Muslim (or Kafir).”
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
– from Umar Sulayman ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ashqar, “Belief in Allah”: “The Muslim should regard the Kuffaar as ENEMIES and HATE them because of their kufr (wrong belief), just as he hates their kufr (disbelief) itself.”
– from [Chap.iv] “The Islaamic Concept of al-Walaa’ wal-Baraa’” by Khalid El-Gharib: “… to SHOW ENMITY to those who show enmity to Allaah and His Messenger”.
(Note: Muslims are to visibly demonstrate their ENMITY or HATRED towards the kufaar)
– from a lecture given by Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal (H.A.): “The implication of al-Baraa is that one HATES for the sake of Allah (SWT)…Al-Baraa means to recognize who your enemies are and to HATE them and EXTERMINATE them in their Endeavour to get rid of your Deen, al-Islam…Al-Baraa is to HATE the people who propagate Baatil (falsehood)—the Muslim should HATE them and (at least desire to) KILL them when the time comes.”
(Note: not ‘if the time comes’, but ‘WHEN the time comes.)
– “Killing a Kafir who is fighting you is OK. Killing a Kafir for any reason (i.e. criticism of Islam), you can say, it is OK – even if there is NO REASON for it. You can poison, ambush and kill non-believers. You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don’t ask shall I do this, just do it.”Abu Hamza al-Masri (Egyptian born British Cleric)
– “As a Muslim, I must have hatred for anything non-Islam” – Anjem Choudary.
gary fouse says
Maybe the researchers should invent a method to measure Kafirphobia in Muslims. If so, it would include a measure they have not thought of apparently. Strong Kafirphobia is when a Muslim kills a kafir.
Rufolino says
Thanks for your excellent factual summary Mortimer. Facts which too many people DO NOT WANT to know.
One day they will be forced to understand them, too late.
FYI says
Would these UK researchers mind devising a tool …..to detect the strength of virulent antisemitism in say,the British labour party?
You could have a graded scale system:Low,Medium,High, Jeremy Corbyn{offscale}
Maybe the School of Leftard Sciences could invent some kind of electronic device like those Ghostbusters scientists did to detect paranormal activity:call it an i-detector.
It could detect “islamophobia” and give out a shrill virtue-signalling sound when it is discovered…
Westman says
Such subterfuge. These “classifications” are designed to make Islam exceptional, not just above “homophobia”; just like Occasional-Cortex’s New Green Deal has the real objective of Weath Redistribution.
dan christensen says
The best way to escape being classified as islamophobe is simple. Just avoid using the letters ‘m’ and ‘i’ in your writings. The algorithm cannot detect that.
ebers of slam are called usls. They are asters of the world. They beleve that there s only one god Allah and uhaed s hs prophet. usls are convnced that all non-usls are evl people, who you can rob and kll as you lke.
Strong slaophoba ncludes statements such as “all usls are barbarans”, whle weak slaophoba ncludes more subtle expressons, such as “usls eat such strange food”.
Even wth all ‘m’ and ‘i’ reoed, you can easly understand ost texts. ndeed, with ‘m’ and ‘i’ reserved exclusvely for usls, they thereby clearly express ther superorty over us evl kufars.
Occasonally when ‘m’ or ‘i’ s used, the censors know that only usls are allowed to use these letters – and thus need no censorng.
Ashley says
+1
Great comment! I’m howling!
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
It might have worked had you not revealed the secret 😉 Now we gotta come up with something new, lol
Ashley says
LOLOL!!!!!
Westman says
Hilarious. And we should note the those missing letters, together, “Mi”, sounds just like me!, me!, me!
Rufolino says
These ‘researchers’ sound unhinged.
Joe says
Your post show that humans are more intelligent than the machines human program. Their “tool” is a joke, but I guess it is a fraud that might make them a few dollars.
dan christensen says
It is easy to fool these “semantic analysis programs”. You just insert a few ‘spaces’ here and there, and a neutral letter to a word, insert underscores between syllables in a word, start and stop words with a minus sign or leave out some vowels. Syntactic and orthographic obfuscating is the a good way to defeat semantic analysis.
S-e -what- I m ean-??
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
“… “any content which is produced or shared which expresses indiscriminate negativity against Islam or Muslims”
Would that include merely speaking the truth about muslims and islam? If I speak of the rape epidemic by muslim men, is that too negative? How ’bout islam’s sexual mutilation of little girls, that too? How about the terror muslims do for their politically motivated religion, am I being too negative with that kind of talk? What about the murderous homophobia so prevalent in islam, is it “negative” for me to defend homosexuals from their hate and murder? If I’m pro Israel, is that being too negative? If I defend atheism as more enlightened than islam’s violent superstitious doctrines, is that too negative? Am I being too negative if I say that islam promotes misogyny and that millions suffer for male dominance within islam? Is it negative to factually speak of the terrorism muslims do against us for their “religion,” like 9/11, 7/7 in Britain, or the Pulse Club shooting in Florida? Please, give me some specific examples of what you consider “indiscriminately negative” about islam and the muslims who strive to advance its murderous ways.
I’m totally convinced that muslims are ruining Western society for a political ideology that masquerades as a religion, why in the hell should I not be able to say that? Muslims are “indiscriminately negative” when they murder and terrorize us for allah, isn’t that far worse than some frank truths on social media about them? Why aren’t these hate speech crusaders concerned about the hate in islam that kills and oppresses every day by the millions? I’ll tell ya why, because they are on the side of religious supremacy over human rights and democracy. They want the quash our freedoms and peace for a religious paradigm that normal people consider retarded, oppressive, or downright evil. It’s by not NOT speaking of these horrors within islam that we act indiscriminately “negative,” because we are allowing their humanitarian crimes and violent supremacist aims to grow. I am not a bigot for speaking against the bigotry in islam, I am not a racist for speaking against islam’s violent and hateful doctrines, and I am not talking “negative” for speaking against the shocking negatively that has existed in the islamic world for centuries. You are the negative ones by acting against our justified fears and disdain concerning islam’s evil and oppressive ways.
Ashley says
+1.
FACTS are not allowed on Twitter.
I doubt if “This little piggy went to the market, this little piggy stayed home…” would be Twitter compliant.
It would delight a toddler but enrage a Muslim.
somehistory says
Agostino Armo Pellegrini,
What I feel and say about islam and moslims…is not “indiscriminate.” It is not “random” or “without thought.”
It is decisive and well-thought out. Isn’t that true of most posters on this site?
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
Well said, Some, there’s nothing indiscriminate about it. Our expressed concerns about islam are rational, fact-based, and with the best intentions. These MP’s who pine for hate speech laws are conflating true hate speech with justified fear and rational discourse. Nobody is going to tell me I can’t talk about the horrors of islam–the crime, the brutality, the oppression. And anyone who tries to deny me with laws or threats my inalienable right to speak of these important issues is committing a humanitarian crime against me and other like minded people. I won’t stand for it, and I encourage other freedom loving people to take the same stand, to defend freedom against the immoral religious supremacy of islam and anyone who aids their cause. And that includes any corrupt government that favors religious bigotry over the right to free expression and good moral conscience. Fuck the U.K government, and that’s “fuck” without the asterisk. They betrayed their own kids to rape with a cover up, they have lost their legitimacy in my mind for that reason alone.
Darryl Kerney says
So “ignoring them” is “islamophobic hate speech” now TOO ?
Saying NOTHING equates to hate speech ?
Wow, that means there is nothing you can say, or not say, other than to Submit (or else) that isn’t anti-muslim hate speech !
“Islamophobic hate speech is much more nuanced and complex than this. It runs the gamut from verbally attacking, abusing and insulting Muslims to ignoring them”
Terry Gain says
Nothing less than submission will satisfy these cowards. * hat# *sla%.
Salome says
Indeed, all your tweets need to end with ‘Islam is wonderful’ or you’ll get banned. Or, worse, ‘helped’.
WPM says
In Germany starting in the 1930s when Hitler came to power all greeting by people were change from hello to Heil Hitler ,soon in England all greeting will state with Heil Islam to satisfy the requirements of daily submission..
Savvy Kafir says
I wish we could just ignore them. Just go about our lives as if they and their vile ideology didn’t exist. But that’s no longer an option, now that we’ve allowed millions of Muslims to come live among us.
Now we’ve got a long, bitter, multi-faceted war ahead of us, before this issue is resolved. Muslims always make war inevitable, whenever they show up anywhere in large numbers. Too bad our “leaders” were foolish enough to allow the barbarians within the gates.
Jayell says
So it’s supposed to be a crime to perceive muslims as ‘different’? Well, a.lot of them deliberately dress differently from everyone else (anyone can see that), or deliberately (and criminally) flout our basic social rules and conventions (that would quickly become obvious to any man who tried to marry 4 women simultaneously) and even openly say that WE non-beluevers don’t conform to THEIR identity – which we obviously don’t. So it’s OK for THEM to ‘perceive a (blatantly obvious) difference’ and claim some sort of incompatibility but no one else is allowed to voice exactly the same opinion for exactly the same reasons but from the opposite direction, even though it stares you in the face? Total nonsense? Yes. Totally unacceptable? Yes, unless you’re the one waning to wear the jackboots in the totalitarian autocracy where your identity rules and no one else is allowed to have one. In which case you say and do exactly as you please, even to the extent of twisting and abusing the English language to concoct high-sounding nonsensical concepts for your propaganda (like ‘islamophobia’) to give yourself some spurious validity, and assume that the ignorant peassnts won’t.notice. And if they do, you just keep repeating it until either they give up arguing or they’ve been eliminated in the cause your version of ‘community cohesion’.
Michael Copeland says
“…investigate radicalisation processes where a person becomes progressively more Islamophobic”.
Sound the alarm. Now there is “radicalisation” where a person becomes more “islamophobic”.
The UK government defines “radicalisation” as the “process by which a person comes to support terrorism…”. So now the invented “islamophobia” is becoming equated with terrorism.
This is an example of how words become misused, clouding their received meaning. Keep alert.
somehistory says
Michael Copeland,
Yes! They are saying that anyone telling the truth about islam and moslims is a “radical” and must be “stopped.”
somehistory says
There is no “phobia” of islam. that’s the first problem with their “machine to detect it.”
They admit that what they term “phobia’ of islam….is “rare.” It is “rare.” So why spend so much time on stopping it? They insist that it is “dangerous” and causes “fear” among the moslim community. Therefore, it must be stopped. no matter how “mild.”
This is especially dangerous: it includes ” ignoring them”
They don’t want to make friends, they don’t want to have anyone LOOK at them…but ” ignoring them” …is considered “hate speech.”
Anyone speaking about “differences” between moslims and never moslims is engaging in “hate speech against moslims.”
And yet, they insist that wearing the scarf is something to talk about…to have days set aside for talking about it…to speak on university campuses about it…encourage never moslims to talk about the moslim scarf wearing rules…and get never moslim women to wear one “for a day’ to see how it “feels to be moslim.”
This is deceptive. It really is for the purpose of stopping any negative discussion….but forcing people to have positive discussions about moslims….People on social media must…must…praise moslims and islam in order to avoid “hate speech” or “phobia” of islam that means “hatred’ of islam and moslims and a distrust of moslims.
They are trying to find a way to **Force** everyone to only say good things….ie To Lie…about islam and moslims or be charged with “hate speech” and face punishment. We can’t not talk about them…as that is “ignoring them.” But, we cannot tell the Truth….as that is considered “hatred” and “racism against moslims.”
In other words: We are being told we have to LIE about islam and moslims. We are not going to be allowed to tell the Truth.
tgusa says
UK researchers. Now that’s a description that leaves me scratching my head.
gravenimage says
UK researchers boast of devising tool to detect “strength” of “Islamophobic hate speech” on Twitter
………………….
So now it is “racist” to take issue with Muslims raping and murdering us in the name of their foul creed?
Savvy Kafir says
Right. Either we take the rape and the murders and the general abuse. and like it, and say: “Please send us more!”, or we’re haters, racists and inhuman bigots.
Salome says
Islamophobia is a snarl word. Call it out!
AntiIslamicman says
If they want to know about hate speech read the Koran. 9:29
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Click on the link in the story at “our definitions” to read the entire paper of Bertie Vidgen and Taha Yasseri — it’s well worth reading, for its unparalleled descent into solemn nuttiness.
Hugh Fitzgerad says
“Islamophobic hate speech includes all speech which includes any mention of those verses of the Qur’an and stories in the hadith which might just possibly lead someone to other-than-flattering views of Islam. Particularly islamophobically hateful are those people who refer to the following Qur’anic verses: 2:190-194, 3:110, 4:34, 4:89, 8:12,8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, 98:6, or who mention two hadith, Muhammad’s remarks that “war is deceit” and, more damning still, “I have been made victorious through terror.”
Any appearance of the words “Jihad,” “dhimmi,” “Jizyah,” “taqiyya” or “allahu akbar” or the proper names Aisha, Kinana, Asma bint Marwan, Abu ‘Akaf, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf are conclusive evidence that the text in question constitutes islamophobic hate speech.
Vidgen and Yasseri are researchers — or more exactly, “researchers” — at the Oxford Internet Institute. Oxford must be very proud.
Paula Boddington says
I wrote a piece criticising this rather poor work for Spiked a couple of weeks back, also reprinted in Front-page and in Israel National News. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/23/the-automated-speech-police/
UNCLE VLADDI says
Don’t they know that, in holding muslims to account, such naive people as we “hateful” conservatives and libertarians, are going against their policies of official racism?! You know, where all members of the swarthy “People Of Colour’s” global crime and murder gang are to never be held to account or asked to take any self-reliant responsibility for their own criminal choices, simply because, as mentally inferior animal-people, they are naturally held hostage by their animal instincts, and so it’s perfectly natural for them to be prone to violence if and when ever “oppressed” (confused) by the mentally-superior whites?!