  The internet has become a central medium through which `networked publics'
express their opinions and engage in debate. Offensive comments and personal
attacks can inhibit participation in these spaces. Automated content moderation
aims to overcome this problem using machine learning classifiers trained on
large corpora of texts manually annotated for offence. While such systems could
help encourage more civil debate, they must navigate inherently normatively
contestable boundaries, and are subject to the idiosyncratic norms of the human
raters who provide the training data. An important objective for platforms
implementing such measures might be to ensure that they are not unduly biased
towards or against particular norms of offence. This paper provides some
exploratory methods by which the normative biases of algorithmic content
moderation systems can be measured, by way of a case study using an existing
dataset of comments labelled for offence. We train classifiers on comments
labelled by different demographic subsets (men and women) to understand how
differences in conceptions of offence between these groups might affect the
performance of the resulting models on various test sets. We conclude by
discussing some of the ethical choices facing the implementers of algorithmic
moderation systems, given various desired levels of diversity of viewpoints
amongst discussion participants.
