While human annotations play a crucial role in language technologies, annotator subjectivity has long been overlooked in data collection. Recent studies that critically examine this issue are often focused on Western contexts, and solely document differences across age, gender, or racial groups. Consequently, NLP research on subjectivity have failed to consider that individuals within demographic groups may hold diverse values, which influence their perceptions beyond group norms. To effectively incorporate these considerations into NLP pipelines, we need datasets with extensive parallel annotations from a variety of social and cultural groups.In this paper we introduce the D3CODE dataset: a large-scale cross-cultural dataset of parallel annotations for offensive language in over 4.5K English sentences annotated by a pool of more than 4k annotators, balanced across gender and age, from across 21 countries, representing eight geo-cultural regions. The dataset captures annotators’ moral values along six moral foundations: care, equality, proportionality, authority, loyalty, and purity. Our analyses reveal substantial regional variations in annotators’ perceptions that are shaped by individual moral values, providing crucial insights for developing pluralistic, culturally sensitive NLP models.

Online social media platforms increasingly rely on Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to detect abusive content at scale in order to mitigate the harms it causes to their users. However, these techniques suffer from various sampling and association biases present in training data, often resulting in sub-par performance on content relevant to marginalized groups, potentially furthering disproportionate harms towards them. Studies on such biases so far have focused on only a handful of axes of disparities and subgroups that have annotations/lexicons available. Consequently, biases concerning non-Western contexts are largely ignored in the literature. In this paper, we introduce a weakly supervised method to robustly detect lexical biases in broader geo-cultural contexts. Through a case study on a publicly available toxicity detection model, we demonstrate that our method identifies salient groups of cross-geographic errors, and, in a follow up, demonstrate that these groupings reflect human judgments of offensive and inoffensive language in those geographic contexts. We also conduct analysis of a model trained on a dataset with ground truth labels to better understand these biases, and present preliminary mitigation experiments.