<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Twitter algorithm catches &amp;quot;90%&amp;quot; of bullies ... in Industry News</title>
    <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28198#M3478</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;And what are they using to define "bullying" behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Will they make it public knowledge so people know what is appropriate and what they are being "caught" for?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or will Twitter just ban people at their whim? I understand it is their platform and they have the right to do with it what they want, but they could make themselves irrelevant by being biased in thoughts and actions.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:06:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>CISOScott</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-09-18T20:06:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Twitter algorithm catches "90%" of bullies ...</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28197#M3477</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Twitter has a new &lt;A href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49740135" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;algorithm which, it says, will catch over 90% of bullies&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now, I really wish them well on the catching bullies part.&amp;nbsp; I really do.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's the 90% part that worries me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let's say that 4% of people are bullies online.&amp;nbsp; (4% seems to be a fairly reliable measure for extremes of behaviour, both good and bad.&amp;nbsp; 4% of people go to jail, 4% of people regularly give more than the standard deduction to charity, 4% of people donate blood, etc.)&amp;nbsp; So for every thousand people, 40 are online bullies.&amp;nbsp; The new Twitter algorithm will, because of false negatives, catch 36 of them.&amp;nbsp; That's good.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thing is, there are not only false negatives in error rates.&amp;nbsp; There are also false positives.&amp;nbsp; And so, out of every thousand people, a hundred are going to be kicked off Twitter for being bullies, even though they aren't.&amp;nbsp; That could be bad ...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:30:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28197#M3477</guid>
      <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-18T18:30:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Twitter algorithm catches "90%" of bullies ...</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28198#M3478</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;And what are they using to define "bullying" behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Will they make it public knowledge so people know what is appropriate and what they are being "caught" for?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or will Twitter just ban people at their whim? I understand it is their platform and they have the right to do with it what they want, but they could make themselves irrelevant by being biased in thoughts and actions.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:06:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28198#M3478</guid>
      <dc:creator>CISOScott</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-18T20:06:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Twitter algorithm catches "90%" of bullies ...</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28213#M3481</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1602421967"&gt;@CISOScott&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;And what are they using to define "bullying" behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ah, the only way to validate the claim of a percentage "caught" is to run tests with a known number of bullies in the test ample. That means an artificial sample, seeded with bullying behavior based on their algorithm. &amp;nbsp;We have a circular logic problem there. The more accurate statement should be, "Our algorithm identifies 90% of the behaviors we have designated as bullying."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1602421967"&gt;@CISOScott&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;...Or will Twitter just ban people at their whim? I understand it is their platform and they have the right to do with it what they want, but they could make themselves irrelevant by being biased in thoughts and actions.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think Twitter has already been shown to do exactly that, ban and suppress based on a particular bias. And, yet, Twitter seems to remain relevant for at least part of the population&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:22:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Twitter-algorithm-catches-quot-90-quot-of-bullies/m-p/28213#M3481</guid>
      <dc:creator>CraginS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-19T01:22:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

