41–50 of 96 posts
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.
Would you really want illiterate voters, though?
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.
Would you really want illiterate voters, though?
I expect there will be some mockery of the questions if they are not careful. Imagine questions written by MSNBC & FoxNews for the same story. I can see the questions setting up an echo chamber effect.
The cool thing about this kind of filter is that it specifically has nothing to do with what the potential poster is about to post . As long as the questions remain about the facts in the article, intuitively it seems terrible for virality (as it extends the time frame between casual emotion and action), so I doubt any large news outlet would actually implement this.
> 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.
Now that being said, there is a reasonable point of view that says while it should not be legally mandated, private party filtering and editing of content acquired from third parties through some sort of public accommodation _seems_ dishonest. But the truth is, publications writ large exist to transmit a particular experience, whether that be cultural, ideological, or technical(in the sense of the mechanics of conversation a la HN). While this would not be ideal if taken to a no-exceptions type extreme, as long as State censorship is fought off and defended successfully, there types speech that gets muffled through one publication can and will find a light through another.
> 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.
I'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?
Great, now how about extending this to voting rights?
In addition to that, you end up breaking the democratic system, which is so very good at keeping our disputes and disagreements from boiling over into a civil war.
> 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.
Of course they rely on a wordlist 90 % of the time but it would eliminate the trashiest comments quite well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
someone will quickly sneak in stuff like "is global warming real?" in the questions.
at least "What is the European Union?" when voting for brexit would be enough.