Google Releases an AI Tool For Publishers To Spot and Weed Out Toxic Comments (bbc.com) 195
Google today launched a new technology to help news organizations and online platforms identify and swiftly remove abusive comments on their websites. The technology, called Perspective, will review comments and score them based on how similar they are to comments people said were "toxic" or likely to make them leave a conversation. From a report on BBC: The search giant has developed something called Perspective, which it describes as a technology that uses machine learning to identify problematic comments. The software has been developed by Jigsaw, a division of Google with a mission to tackle online security dangers such as extremism and cyberbullying. The system learns by seeing how thousands of online conversations have been moderated and then scores new comments by assessing how "toxic" they are and whether similar language had led other people to leave conversations. What it's doing is trying to improve the quality of debate and make sure people aren't put off from joining in.
Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
So all those posts from SJWs can easily be removed. I'm a fan of this.
Re:Sophisticated Algorithm! (Score:2)
I bet it fucking just fucking removes all fucking posts with fucking swearing. Sophisticated algorithm my arse.
Re: (Score:1)
Solves the WRONG problem (Score:5, Funny)
What is needed is an AI that deletes all first posts. Think about how wonderful that would be. It would work, methodically, persistently and tirelessly no matter how many times a first post is submitted. No matter who submits it. No matter how many people try to get the first post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
biggots
See, what we really need is an AI that allows publishers to filter out comments containing toxic spelling. Yeah, I'm white, hetero, old, and male; so 4 out of 6.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm less worried about all of them than those that attack the principle of free speech. Using the word "bigot" as a weapon, or even implying it, prevents free exchange of ideas. This falls under the umbrella of virtue-signalling, which is a more specific and useful term than "SJW".
There are plenty of people that smear others, both to win arguments and to show how righteous they are. To me, these people are the most toxic, because they are the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
an individualist who is for the free-market == right wing.
right wing == fascists
therefore anyone not for the progressive economic prescription of the day is a fascist
since fascists are evil and not worthy of being listened to and deserve physical violence
therefore anyone who is not a progressive deserves to be ignored and physically assaulted.
Re: (Score:2)
And this children is what we call the slippery slope.
Notice it is not only a flawless example of the fallacy, but also a flawless example of how many people actually think.
Yes, that is right children, many so-called humans actually think in logical fallacies. They allow the intensity of their baseless emotions to somehow derail logic from it's inexorable path.
No! We don't exterminate them! That would be inhumane. Logic dictates that we do not kill lesser species.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a live-and-let-live libertarian and have been met with real hostility and been called a fascist for simple pro free-market arguments.
I have been yelled at for not considering Trump to be an Nazi.
I didn't vote for trump. I did not support him. I disagree with him on many, many things, But, for instance, wanting to control borders and limit immigration is not equal to being a fascist.
There is a real culture of intolerance on the left. Look at the riots over
Re: (Score:2)
Same, very libertarian-leaning (I recognize the need for SOME services, so I guess I'm not exactly a "pure libertarian"). It's so weird b/c there are a LOT of things I disagree with Trump on, but whoa, don't let me disagree with certain liberals on things or I'm automatically a trump-tard, or Uncle Tom, or whatever other insult-of-the-day there is to be thrown at me.
Re: (Score:2)
He just missed placing sarcasm tags -- or you just got severely WHOOSH'd
Breathlessly reporting online censorship (Score:1)
Let's automate oppression!
"Toxic" comments huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's all bow down the moral arbiters of justice then. I'm sure that they'll be right on top of removing speech they disagree with. Then moving onto the useful idiots that cheered this on in the first place.
If you're willing to remove some speech because it makes you upset, there's nothing stopping others from doing the same to you later.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like an online forum's moderation, then you are completely free to find one more to your liking, or even start your own.
But believe me, sooner or later if your online forum takes off in any way, you're going to get some trolls, and if they aren't checked, they'll drive out anyone reasonable people. I've seen more than one forum collapse under the weight of uncontrolled trolling. It even happened to a local community web forum, where three or four very abusive posters who seemed to have infinite
Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah here's the problem. Let's look at a site like neogaf, ever wonder why at one time it was the place to go and developers would post there and people would leak information. And now developers don't? Active participation is down? It was the moderation as you pointed out, but let's look at their definition of a troll, which basically boils down to "anyone who doesn't subscribe to the narrative." Let's look now, at what will get you banned. Have a contrary view of feminism? Banned. Support some ideas of a MRA? Banned. Have differing view points on global warming? Banned. Prefer the xbox vs playstation? Likely banned. Don't like your vidya characters to look like they were hit with a bat? Banned.
The problem is in many cases, moderators especially in this day and age use that as a form of power projection. A good example of this is /r/politics or /r/canadapolitics where you have moderators who ban people for pointing out factual information because it goes against the prevailing group think. Have a nice article about how forums become infiltrated by people pushing authoritarian viewpoints. [oneangrygamer.net]
I ran a BBS in my teens, and it got large enough that I was considering applying for a regional fido:net hub. At nearly 700 people and 4 nodes, I picked moderators for my forums who weren't assholes, who usually worked, and if they stepped over the line they were given one warning then booted. As sysop, I expected my mods to be impartial. And if a friend was involved to pass the issue to another mod to deal with. I ran on Renegade.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not the definition of a troll. FRom the earliest days, trolls were people who said inflammatory things, started flamewars, and generally were bullying and derogatory, and even in the early days of Usenet, moderated groups would see such people banned. There are ways to express contrary views that doesn't involve threats and bullying.
Re: (Score:3)
There are ways to express contrary views that doesn't involve threats and bullying.
Funny, because I heard from many people that there are ideas that should never be expressed. Leftists told me that any research that shows a difference in mental capacity between people of different genetics should be forbidden even if truth, rightists (I'm Israeli) told me that any research that shows that there is no single jewish ethnicity is antisemitic and therefore automatically forbidden. Was there ever any time in history where your quote above was actually correctly?
Re: (Score:3)
Guess you haven't kept up with what's been going on for the last ~10 years. Because the old definition of trolling has long gone out the window, and trolling is basically considered "anyone who disagrees with me" or "has a viewpoint contrary to my world view." You enjoying the era where social justice reinvents something or changes the definitions of words in order to self-victimize yet?
It's kinda like the casual use of sexism, or racism. As a response to anything, especially by those who are heavily int
Re: (Score:2)
"trolling is basically considered "anyone who disagrees with me"
See my signature.
Re: (Score:2)
You signature makes no sense. Since anyone can go find a person who supports social justice, and has a pro-authoritarian slant to boot. In turn, you can find a few people who post here and support said social justice values and also have a pro-authoritarian slant.
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, where is your evidence of this?
Because every time in the past when we have actually looked into these claims, it's just trolls trying to hide behind "my views are just conservative, I'm not trolling!" and no-one falling for it.
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, where is your evidence of this?
Neogaf isn't a hive mind? [imgur.com] Or will you claim that *insert thing isn't a source* like you usually do? Feel free to hit your favorite search engine and use "neogaf" "ban". Sites like ceddit/go1dfish.me [ceddit.com] do a good job of covering the deletion of things. Subs like /r/subredditcancer [reddit.com] show individual case-by-case examples. You can now claim that these show nothing, and there are no problems like you usually do.
Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Second, all sides (liberals, conservatives, moderates) have trolls and jerks among them.
Third, if it's a forum run by a non-government source, the First Amendment doesn't apply. They don't have to let someone (or anyone for that matter) use their forum. Especially if they break the rules of the forum.
Fourth, there is a difference between open debate and toxic posting. I fully believe in open debate. You might not change my mind on a topic, but I welcome an honest and open debate. But some people don't want to debate. They want to shout down, or harass, or whatever. And unless you have a crack moderator staff, you can't always keep on top of this sort of thing, especially if it's a large/popular forum.
I speak from some experience on both sides of this. Some years ago, I was a moderator on an MMO forum for Dark Age of Camelot. It wasn't a forum run by the company that made DAOC, it was a fan forum. I ended up as a moderator (much to my surprise) for regularly giving helpful information and trying to be a good guy. While I was a moderator, we had to put people in various lengths of "time out" for being jerks, or abusing the forum rules, or spamming, or whatever.
Shockingly, the moderators weren't always the most popular people with the friends of the trolls.
On the other side of the fence, there was (possibly still is) a forum for a group called Christian Exodus. Among their stated goals is (as a last resort), the idea of moving enough followers to a specific U.S. state (South Carolina), to try and influence enough elections and legislators to make it a more Christian state. Actually, their absolute last resort was to have SC secede from the U.S.
I was banned from their forums because I would do things like remind them that the last time that SC seceded, it didn't go all that well, or remind them that there's more than one version of the Bible (they were very focused on returning to doing _exactly_ what the Bible said), and so on. I was enjoying myself, but I can't really say it came as a shock when I was banned from posting on their forum.
Re: (Score:1)
First, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
What the fuck does this slogan mean? I keep hearing it. It sounds like the kind of doublethink parents use mistakenly use on their children, like the equivalent of goo goo gaa gaa babytalk but for seven year olds.
If the "consequence" of speaking freely is to be silenced, meaning made so no one else can hear you, then that's not free speech.
If the "consequence" of speaking freely is to be threatened, "punch a Nazi" and so on, until you shut up, then that's not free speech.
If the "consequence" of speaking f
Re: (Score:2)
First, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
What the fuck does this slogan mean? I keep hearing it. It sounds like the kind of doublethink parents use mistakenly use on their children, like the equivalent of goo goo gaa gaa babytalk but for seven year olds.
It's quite simple really that even a seven year old could understand. It means you can say whatever the fuck you want but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you and it doesn't mean that nothing will happen as a result of what you say. If you insult someone and they punch you for it, or throw you out of their property or whatever, they haven't curbed your right to free speech at all.
Re: (Score:2)
First, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Stop saying that.
Freedom of any kind absolutely means freedom from certain consequences. If any kind of retaliation to speech is permitted, then the speech is not really free, beyond the sense that you're free to rob an armored car so long as you accept the consequence of getting shot.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about the specific topic of discussion about banning people on forums and whatnot, just that phrase "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" which keeps being repeated everywhere lately. It's not true. Something like it is true -- freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from all consequences, say -- but the nuance is important, because what makes any freedom a freedom at all is entirely the disallowing of certain kinds of consequences, so freedom of speech is freedom from
Re: (Score:2)
And those consequences make that specific speech in those specific circumstances not free. (Which might be a good thing in those circumstances; not all freedoms are good, like the freedom to punch a stranger in the face for no reason). You are not free to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, because you will face legal consequences for doing so. The consequences are what makes you not free to do so. So this "free but not from consequences" meme is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you legally prevent anyone from doing anything is to threaten them with consequences for doing so. Every law is a statement to the effect that "if you do X we will do Y to you in retaliation" (where "Y" is usually "fine you money or else put you in jail or else or shoot you"). The consequences are the prevention.
In light of which the example I gave was actually a bad one. In many respects you are not free, even in the meaningless "if you accept the consequences" sense, to rob an armored car, be
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth, there is a difference between open debate and toxic posting.
Indeed, toxic posting is designed to shut down a debate.
Re: (Score:1)
If they're refusing access to the forum because the user is a protected class, that would be a potential issue.
Being an asshole isn't a protected class.
And I'm hard pressed to think of a forum that doesn't have some Terms of Use. And most of them spell out behavior that will get you banned.
But does a forum run by a game company, or a business, or a political group or whatever count as a public accommodation? Even if it was, even in a business of public accommodation, there is behavior that will get you show
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well, let's all bow down the moral arbiters of justice then. I'm sure that they'll be right on top of removing speech they disagree with.
This is precisely what the spammers warned us about when the exact same Bayesian [wikipedia.org] techniques were applied to get rid of spam. But you didn't listen to their plight, and now here we are having abusive trolls content removed before too. Where will the carnage end?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's all bow down the moral arbiters of justice then. I'm sure that they'll be right on top of removing speech they disagree with.
Never attribute to opinion that which can be adequately explained by greed.
They may agree fully with what you said, but a comment that a company's customer support sucks is still going to be removed.
Preferably automatically, so they won't have to pay an outsourced minimum wage slave to do the job.
Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Posts are not removed, only given score. I can even conveniently select I want to see all posts, even those who are modded down. Having this treshold set to -1 shows my "trust" in the moderation process.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but I read the comments at -1.
And THAT is the way this should be done, not be removing comments. I'm perfectly fine with having it score comments. In fact I think there should be several different factions allowed to score comments. And people should be able to browse, for each service, at any minimum score required they choose. Personally, I'd like a score service that rated any post that mentioned "SJW" at -1, and that one I'd use setting the minimum score at zero. But this doesn't mean I
Donald Trump? (Score:1)
Did Donald Trump just take over the PR role for Google?
With YouTube, an Alphabet/Google Company, having the cesspool of toxic comments that it has, I don't see how anyone at Google could claim with a straight face that Google's infrastructure is any good at filtering out toxic comments.
Re: (Score:1)
"The system learns by seeing how thousands of online conversations have been moderated and then scores new comments by assessing how "toxic" they are and whether similar language had led other people to leave conversations."
We all know that people abuse the moderation system to equate "I disagree" with modding a post down. If I had to guess, I'd say that what constitutes a "toxic" comment will be a mix between: a) toxic and b) unpopular opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't even have to be "unpopular." "I support Trump" and "I support Hillary" were both widely held, popular opinions. But you damn well know people are moderating those comments based on their own political bent and not on "toxicity."
This is why reddit is such garbage. Yes, the rules explicitly state that up votes and down votes mean "contributes" or "doesn't contribute" and not "agree" or "disagree." So on any controversial topic what you should find at the top should be the very best, most well thought-
Re: (Score:3)
I think most people would consider that a toxic point of view to express
Depends on whether you're advocating for the exclusion of white people. [michiganreview.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This might be new to you, but the left have been pushing for speech controls for years at google. It's not Trump, it's not those on the right. The right are the ones defending free speech, and it's the left who are trying to censor it. Whether it be no-platforming, violent assaults on people, using bomb threats or other tactics to shut down venues. The social justice brigade [thegg.net] has been doing this for a long time, it's why github is such a steaming pile of shit now. You can see this when companies start i
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with intelligent people having a civil discussion about public policy, even if they have disagreeing views.
It is the name calling and suggestions that MY SIDE is 100% Correct and on the side of the angels, and YOUR SIDE is 100 % Wrong and on the side of the Dev
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is, if someone considers my comment "toxic" because it hurts their feelings. They probably need to spend some time outside of their social bubbles and realize that the world isn't a happy place where people give you what you want if you cry loud enough. The sad thing is, it *is* the left(not all of it), that are pro-censorship and anti-free speech. It's the same situation that we saw back in the 80's and 90's. Remember? When you had the religious nuts holding power in quite a few places, cl
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has an even better plan. Don't bother censoring everyone else, just call them liars and dishonest until people only listen to you. It's the same strategy used by cult leaders everywhere, except instead of a compound where he can brainwash his followers he has Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, is simply vocalizing what a lot of people already think on the state of the media. And him vocalizing what people already believe is one of the big reasons why he was elected, round that out with the out-right refusal to bow to political correctness. Why do you think trust of it is so low in western countries? It's not because of Trump. It's because of the media.
So . . . (Score:1)
. . . onto all the ways we can fool this "ai" to get snide comments through
. . . cry for all the false positives there will be
. . . all the tricky cases, such as someone quoting "a toxic post" as an example of how not to do it . . .
Re: (Score:2)
And spelling mistakes: "that was very good" is rated 1% likely toxic, and "that was veri good" is rated 6% likely toxic.
http://www.perspectiveapi.com/... [perspectiveapi.com]
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ideas are one thing. Abusive trolls is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was posting on moderated Usenet forums in the early 90s, and trolls who got too abusive (and it wasn't just about content, but also about the number of posts) would get booted. This happened in particular in specialist forums like the sci. hierarchy, In fact, the talk. hierarchy was initially created to try to siphon off the kooks.
In general, anyone whose posts frequently amount to intimidation and threats, and who posts large volumes of them, is the kind of person who is often given the boot in many foru
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary != toxic (Score:2)
It is entirely possible to have a completely contrary position to someone and express it without being toxic.
Censorship (Score:2)
By whom? For what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who will be filing the most complaints? The people with money to pay astroturfers and sockpuppets? That is what we have everywhere else, so why would Google's app be any different?
What will the complaints be about? Same thing we see everywhere else, which is anything not pro communist/extreme leftist?
This is a promotion of fascism, not freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At that point, they (much like Twitter), should be treated as a "utility" in legal terms and forced to allow all speech,
Unfortunately it's come up several times, and actions by regulated utilities are NOT acts of state, and thus aren't bound to the restrictions placed on the govt at large.
Here's a related supreme court case on the matter, from that funky year of 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
It can't work. (Score:3)
>The technology, called Perspective, will review comments and score them based on how similar they are to comments people said were "toxic" or likely to make them leave a conversation.
Experience shows that toxic comments encourage participation as they simultaneously reduce participant satisfaction.
You want customers hitting F5 and (hopefully) seeing more ads on your site? Get people's egos involved and get them competing and hating on each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Experience shows that toxic comments encourage participation as they simultaneously reduce participant satisfaction.
In other words, trolling works.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot has moderation that helps filter out the worst trolls, but it also amplifies the groupthink which is commonplace on the Internet. Just go to any Slashdot thread on H1B or copyright enforcement and see how many "pro" posts get modded up. And the articles on female coders seem to bring boys here back to their days of sitting in the back row of the middle school classroom.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you get a bit of group think but for goodness sake, don't you mostly find it funny? H1B is mostly rated poorly by a group of people who more than likely have lost work because of H1B? And of course the capitalist businesses that hire the H1B would think it the best thing since sliced bread because it lowers costs. Do you think we are idiots who do not know that? FFS stop being such a snowflake. There are plenty of other places where a different partisan view is expressed and if you are not aware o
Re: (Score:3)
It's about finding an appropriate place to shitpost. That place is 4chan, and the many other shitposting speciality sites.
On the other hand you have sites like Github, which are about collaborating to write software. They probably don't want too much trolling. Needs to be mostly safe-for-work because their business model requires it. So they have an interest in nuking toxic users.
Feel free to argue that Github should change policy, or start your own version (didn't 4chan try that?) and see if it becomes pop
Of course (Score:2)
And we will define "toxic" as anything that doesn't support authoritarian technocracy.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is "we"? If you run a website you can use this tool to make it easier to remove posts you don't like. That's up to you. If people don't like it your site will suffer, but that's all it is. It's not some government control, and it's not something you can't already do on your own.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not some government control, and it's not something you can't already do on your own.
The issue of "government control" is moot when the companies that control the government also own the social media platforms. See my .sig.
Online demo (Score:2)
http://www.perspectiveapi.com/ [perspectiveapi.com]
Unsupervised learning techniques would be better (Score:2)
How this will kill Truth. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have a troll problem, then moderate properly by banning. Censorship is not the answer because truth will ultimately suffer.
The definition of toxic will never be a constant, and I can already seen forums looking for revenue streams to favor those paying for certain "filters".
Re: (Score:2)
If there was such a thing as big-T Truth that was perfectly knowable, this, and other forms of censorship, would be great. Anything false could simply be censored and anything true let stand.
It's because perfect truth is inaccessible to us that we need to embrace truth seeking rather than the truth as we know it. Rejecting censorship is part of that stance.
Free Speech for Me not for Thee (Score:1)
Censorship is NEVER a good answer. (Score:3)
This tool sounds like every PeeCee SJW's wet dream.
Whose "Perspective"? (Score:2)
If my "perspective" counters yours, should I have the right to remove yours?
If an American Internet website creator allows public access without registration (newspaper, social, journal, blog, whatever) then the 1st Amendment applies and they have no right to restrict what visitors to their sites post.
This should be obvious from the fact that a Christian baker was fined (put out of business?) for refusing to bake a homosexual, a lifestyle diametrically opposed and forbidden by the Christian faith (Lev 18:
"Toxic" gives it away (Score:3)
I'm just going to say it... "Toxic" is a social justice flag word. Like over use of "gross" or "icky" or referring to people as babies "shitlords" "edgelords" or "shitbirds" and so on.
Now that we've established potential bias here, we need to define "Toxic"? Is that simply not agreeing with the status quo? Is an opposing opinion debating a topic deemed "Toxic"?
Should be banned by law! Seriously. (Score:2)
By nature AI censoring (moderating or also so called recommendation systems) work on premise that only information "you/author likes" are permissible. And there is the danger because the ultimate goal is to leave only comments (ads/recommendations) that are totally in line with given topic/desire/need/view...
Now imagine the site of the fundamental extremist - in that context AI will ban all moderate comments as they will be deemed "toxic" by extremists leaving only comments supporting the fundamentalists po
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how Eschelon, PRISM, Carniviore, etc. were put in place to catch pedos.... but we still are infested with em.
This is just the latest chapter in the cucks who TRY to run the world refining their censorship methods.
Re: (Score:2)
How about an algorithm that immediately blocks and deletes any comments referring to "cucks", "alpha males", or "SJW"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mod parent down (or up as per bias) (Score:1)
Hillary's not a Republican, you moron. If you think the Democratic party is not far enough to the left, say so, but you deserved to get moderated down for claiming a vote for Hillary could be part of a straight Republican ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!"
Similarly, calling yourself a Democrat while following faithfully in the footsteps of corporatist Republicans does not make you a Democrat. Giving lip service to liberal issues while selling your constituents down the river in favor of big business does not make you a liberal. Just because you bought into the lie doesn't make the truth false.
Saying the party is not "left enough" when their candidate is decidedly "right" is an inadequate response
Re: (Score:2)
Registering as a Democrat, running as a Democrat, and being nominated as a Democrat does make you a Democrat. Calling her "decidedly 'right'" does not make her so. Denying plain facts makes both of you look childish, as does blatantly mischaracterizing what I said. There's a huge difference between silencing someone and moderating them. You do come across as a bitter Bernie supporter who ought to be dismissed and modded down by the grown-ups at the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have confused me with someone else. I haven't said that Hillary Clinton is particularly left-leaning by today's standards. She was in some ways to the left of Obama in 2008, and she currently is to the left of all major Democrats who ran before that. Today's Democrats are largely barking moonbats, so there are lots of Dems to the left of her now.
My only contention about Clinton was that she was, and is, a Democrat, and saying that a ballot including her is "a straight Republican ticket" is de
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved where this software could be useful.
Unfortunately, I see it much more likely to be a tool of the "mad roman mob" out for blood. More people value comfortable lies than inconvenient truth.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think OP is saying up is down, you haven't been paying attention. Or you're not old. Believe me, as a 52-year-old, Hillary looked like a Republican from my yoot, complete with the careful not-talking-about stuff that is uncomfortable. I still voted for her, because better a 1970's republican than a whack job, but let's be honest about who we're electing.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one mainstream 1970s Republican who advocated for gay marriage, transsexual bathrooms, or any of Hillary's distinguishing social positions. Name one who supported free trade with China, open borders, hugely increased capital gains taxes, cap and trade for emissions, single-payer health care or any of Hillary's other specific economic proposals.
You should be delighted that instead of a 1970s Republican, we elected a 1980s/1990s Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Ayup.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather have the racists hanging out on Stormfront. I'd say not giving those kinds of people a wide platform to stand on is just fine. When the white supremacists were stuck reading their mimeotyped bulletins and meeting in basements, or even later dialing into pre-Stormfront BBSs, and finally on sites like Stormfront itself, they had no great legitimacy.
I'd much rather have those types pushed back on to Stormfront and like-minded sites, simply because there is no feasible way to create universal ki
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why the only answer to Nazism is censorship/no platform/violence, etc. Are their arguments so incredibly powerful and persuasive that anyone who hears them becomes a Nazi? If you're unable to argue with them, is it because you're terrible at debate, or is it because they're right?
Re: (Score:2)
This is evident in how many Republicans have submitted themselves to Trump, who is hardly a model of a good Christian.
Who cares how much time Trump spends praying so long as he appoints conservative Supreme Court justices and doesn't shove trannies into your bathrooms or force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any different from the left?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a bigot. Censoring speech of bad view points doesn't make it go away, it makes it fester. On top of that, it's also used as a method to block views that people express if it's contrary to official policies. That's one of the reasons why you're seeing extremist parties start to rise in European countries, because views contrary to the government/elites are being blocked/ignored/etc. And those groups, offer a way for people vent/make statements/etc without being censored by the powers in place.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was a Nazi, you AC troll, I'd be demanding the government moderate forums. As it is, if I own a forum, it's mine, and if I don't want Nazis on it, that's my business.
Re: (Score:2)
Insanity is said to be trying the same thing and expecting a different result.
That's an awful and very wrong quote. It sounds cool, I guess, unless you read it, and simplify it to "If at first you don't succeed, give up." So if I shoot a basketball once, it doesn't go in the net, if I shoot it again from the same spot with the same form I'm crazy? Nah. That's called practice and determination.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I think we're in the early stages of a digital renaissance.
The traditional media is having convulsions because they realize that they've lost the ability to control the narrative. Not only are they chained to the old mediums, they've destroyed their credibility with the public. Look no further than the polls showing people's hatred and distrust of them. These same control freaks are now grasping to control the flow of information in the realm of social media and the internet, but they are do
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious answer is to kick mobile phone users off the internet, or let them have their own playpen where they can scream at each other. It is as simple as banning all cross platform browsers from your web site for example. No more Trolls!
Re: (Score:2)
So why do you put up with a society that goes into meltdown if a women's clothing gets disturbed and you see a nipple on a Superbowl segment? Nobody really cares do they? they just pretend to care because it is expected of them. Your society whether you like it or not has a standard for behavior in various different situations and if you do not like it argue to change the standard. You cannot just argue for "no standards" because they will come after you with pitchforks and kill you. Ask your Mom.
Re: (Score:2)
Go shove a pinecone up your ass, faggot.