51–60 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that is happening, that is a huge problem. We'll look at that right away. We specifically don't want that to be the case. We want to encourage healthy, productive debate. We may have the "dog-whistle" stuff over tuned.
the dog whistle tuning is absolutely over the top in its default setting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
In other opinion polls they back up that he doesn't suck. Either way who cares? That's not what the app is supposed to be about if it's teaching/correcting you how to argue/debate better. You completely ignored the whole point of what I said, which is that even in a simple statement like "This person sucks" it added its own implicit connotations, namely that disliking someone who happens to be black is implicit racis…
Article Context: Fun: Die Hard; Is It a Christmas Movie?
Your(my) Comment: The erotic version of Die Hard does involve Santa Claus getting naughty with the terrorists on Christmas Eve.
Banned topics found: sexual content, adult themes
This comment touches on adult themes and sexual content, which are not suitable for discussion in this context about a classic action film. Results: Revision Requested. This comment would be sent back for revision with feedback.
Revise Low Effort
Comment appears to be low effort
Objectionable Phrases:
"Santa Claus getting naughty with the terrorists"
This phrase can be seen as sexualizing a character traditionally viewed as innocent and family-friendly, which is inappropriate. Such language can make discussions feel uncomfortable or offensive to some audiences.
Relevance Check On-topic: No (confidence: 90%)
This is off-topic - the comment about an erotic version of Die Hard strays into inappropriate content that doesn't relate to the film's actual story or its production details.
Banned topics found: sexual content, adult themes
This comment touches on adult themes and sexual content, which are not suitable for discussion in this context about a classic action film.
Love the effort here, been thinking about what this kind of tool might look like for a while. Something like this coupled with better prosocial affordances in the medium will do a lot to improve discourse online. I wrote up one a while back [1] but things like that are only a small part of a much bigger picture. The overall problem needs to be tackled from all angles - poster pre-post self-awareness (like respecify b…
Your blog post will be read. ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism. "Dogwhistle The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This re…
I would think/hope that both of those comments would be flagged with even a small amount of moderation set. Avoiding that kind of comment is exactly what we are trying to do, actually.
Nothing in "Obama sucks" implied any kind of racism. If it's so baked in that with a simple phrase like that it reaches for dogwhistles, how can anyone trust the objectivity of this?
This passes your checks, but a human moderator would flag it: > My favorite movie is die hard. I think it's a Christmas movie. But, honestly, we shouldn't have to wait until Christmas to watch you die hard. We should be able to watch that any day of the week :) Seems to catch various other cases though. Cool tool.
And I agree, you can watch Die Hard anytime. ;-)
Everything is a dogwhistle.
"This comment appears to dismiss the complexity of discussions about dogwhistles by claiming that 'everything is a dogwhistle.' This type of blanket statement can undermine the seriousness of genuinely harmful coded language, and can trivialize valid concerns about discrimination and manipulation in discourse."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks so much. This is like gold to us. The defaults we have set are clearly too high. That comment should be exactly what we should approve. Thanks for trying it.
So this is a good illustration of the problem. If it were my site, "I like X now" would be a red flag. I don't think you're gonna AI your way out of this part of things for some time, and it really is the core challenge to content moderation; it's heavily opinion and circumstance based, in a way current models really struggle with.
Well, we are going to give it a try!
Thanks again...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more? (This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)
Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism. "Dogwhistle The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This re…
Very sensitive topic. We'll think hard on how to handle things like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This comment appears to dismiss the complexity of discussions about dogwhistles by claiming that 'everything is a dogwhistle.' This type of blanket statement can undermine the seriousness of genuinely harmful coded language, and can trivialize valid concerns about discrimination and manipulation in discourse."
We've dialed "dog whistles" way back -- thanks for the feedback.
(I moderated a vBulletin forum in the 1990s. This shit gets really, really, really hard, and no one is ever really happy with it.)