This reminds me of a literary test to vote. In this case it's: "Here's our news story. Answer some questions to be sure you understand OUR point of view, the words and ideas WE want you to acquiesce, in order to express your so-called opinion." Ungood.
Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
31–40 of 96 posts
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
My pet theory is that the purpose of the USA 2016 do was to keep a large disaffected segment inside the tent. (Inside pissing out instead of outside pissing in, as the phrase goes. Until they go away or whatever, that's another day's problem.)
It split the tent. A ten thousand year old idea. Now poor screwed over urban dwellers and poor screwed over rural dwellers are fiercely blaming each other for messing everything up. Setting up a cycle of blame among the powerless disenfranchised groups is so old and still works so well.
It works well but it does not always end well. Civil wars have been started in this way.
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#33I was under the impression that comments on news sites were mostly to divert the readership from directly contacting the author or the company through channels that are listened to; merely a solution to keep the wacko segment of the readership occupied and satiated. At least in practice, this is how it appears to function; they're almost exclusively 3rd party plugins and nobody that works for the news organizaion see…
I'm admin for several news sites. We chose a third-party plugin for comments because it offers easier account management for the user and better spam filtering than anything home-grown, and like any third-party plugin, we don't have to update that piece of software ourselves. We do read the comments and engage when appropriate.
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#34This reminds me of a literary test to vote. In this case it's: "Here's our news story. Answer some questions to be sure you understand OUR point of view, the words and ideas WE want you to acquiesce, in order to express your so-called opinion." Ungood.
Really depends on the wording.
"What does this remind him of? - a literary test to vote"
vs
"This is like a ...? - literary test to vote"
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#35I was under the impression that comments on news sites were mostly to divert the readership from directly contacting the author or the company through channels that are listened to; merely a solution to keep the wacko segment of the readership occupied and satiated. At least in practice, this is how it appears to function; they're almost exclusively 3rd party plugins and nobody that works for the news organizaion see…
I find the comments most of the time more read worthy than the article.
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#36I've often thought that those who make decisions for society should be required to pass a test to show they understand all sides of an issue. It is absurd to me that politicians are currently allowed to make the wide variety of decisions that they make. I don't think anybody really wants to vote for them to do that. (There was an old episode of Star Trek that had officer candidates use the holodeck to be exposed to a…
I've often thought that apart from the very fewest national security issues all government should be conducted in the open: all cabinet meetings should be public, all political areas should be monitored and the results available to all, and all private political discussion between politicians should be banned on pain of imprisonment. If they've nothing to hide they've nothing to fear, right?
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#37This reminds me of a literary test to vote. In this case it's: "Here's our news story. Answer some questions to be sure you understand OUR point of view, the words and ideas WE want you to acquiesce, in order to express your so-called opinion." Ungood.
Would you really want illiterate voters, though?
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#38I was under the impression that comments on news sites were mostly to divert the readership from directly contacting the author or the company through channels that are listened to; merely a solution to keep the wacko segment of the readership occupied and satiated. At least in practice, this is how it appears to function; they're almost exclusively 3rd party plugins and nobody that works for the news organizaion see…
I find the comments most of the time more read worthy than the article.
Try YouTube or Fox News comments.
But on good sites, absolutely! I'd consider comment sections more valuable than the news content, which is often an AP repost with a couple more sentences.
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#39> Google announced last week, for instance, that it had built an artificially intelligent tool that can read through comments and identify whether or not they are "toxic". Censorship at its finest.
"Censorship + Math != Censorship" evidently.
Re: Must answer questions before posting comments to prove you understand news
#40I've often thought that those who make decisions for society should be required to pass a test to show they understand all sides of an issue. It is absurd to me that politicians are currently allowed to make the wide variety of decisions that they make. I don't think anybody really wants to vote for them to do that. (There was an old episode of Star Trek that had officer candidates use the holodeck to be exposed to a…
I've often thought that apart from the very fewest national security issues all government should be conducted in the open: all cabinet meetings should be public, all political areas should be monitored and the results available to all, and all private political discussion between politicians should be banned on pain of imprisonment. If they've nothing to hide they've nothing to fear, right?
I'm guessing nobody at all would want to be a politician under those circumstances.