Google Tackles Trolls With AI - Comments Page 2

For most of history, there was a natural limit to how widely and quickly ideas (good or bad) could be communicated. Radio & TV began only about 100 years ago, and even then it was the professionals in that field who conveyed information, essentially serving as "moderators" of what people were discussing.

Now we live in a different age. The instantaneous and non-stop "sharing" that comes from everyone being constantly connected to everyone else, inevitably brings out the worst in people, including cruel and excessive shaming. As with mob mentality, calm or accepting attitudes will always be outshouted by the opposite....and an intelligent response will seem less convincing than one that does not require a lot of thought. As the saying goes: "For any problem you face, it won't take long to find a simple answer - and it is usually the wrong answer."

Anonymity does facilitate comments by trolls, but it is not the main problem. The echo chamber of social media itself (or "anti-social" media) amplifies the evolutionary tendency of all humans to be self-centered, judgmental, aggresive, and tribalistic. So an unstable individual will shoot up a school or workplace in order to become famous, with mass media/social media airing their grievances and telling their entire life story. There are life & death consequences to our obsession with sharing everything.

There is simply too much information being communicated and no need for most of it. But people can't tolerate being bored for even a moment - and they no longer have to: Everyone carries with them, in the palm of their hand, a source of limitless diversion and provocation. Sadly, the technological cat is out of the bag and we will forever suffer for it.

Caustic comments seldom persuade, seldom illuminate. Sarah Jeong's caustic comment about Sanders simply angered (presumed) Sanders fans, and persuaded none. Score: A zero sum flame war, burdening the rest of us.

Before we leave the topic of Sanders, he, himself, was regularly flamed by irresponsible comments from the entire spectrum of trolls-- from HRC fans livid that he might challenge the Heiress Apparent to Trump fans, incensed Sanders did not defer to The Donald.

To his credit, Sanders avoided the wasted energy of dueling personalities, and for a change, focused national debate on critical policy issues. Sanders continues as US senator, a progressive thought leader, and a point of inspiration for Americans who welcome reform and a better future.

People really should get back to clean civil behaviors and sweeping their on door steps first.
This years political animosities have really been flying around. At no other time in history have people been able to communicate their thoughts so quickly. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely thus the owners of social media begin to dictate what thoughts we can share. The politics of today should surprise none.

Well, from what I have learned from people I know deep in the industry that is not all that the AI is doing. AI is being used AS trolls to bring about chaos on chat boards.

The results of studying the reactions to certain trigger words are kept track of and and social interactions on line are manipulated with the use of AI. Records are kept of people and those who are considered a threat to a future social standard will be singled out. Unfortunately, that is not the REAL mean people, but usually those with values from morally based upbringing.

So, I don't really feel that is all that they are doing. Keep in mind next time you see a troll that you may not be conversing with a real human at all, but an AI designed to provoke a certain response from you.

Sound too bizarre? About 20 years ago to think of people yacking endlessly or texting obsessively on their phones instead of talking to others, even in social situations was unthinkable and rude.

What is the problem with hate speech ? Banning hate means trying to force people to love someone. Or something. Or some particular government. Or some specific set of ideas. How can you get more oppressive than that ?

Many people hate Hitler and the Nazi ideology. Ah, but speaking against Nazis is not hate speech, you see. However, speaking against Bernie Sanders might be. Feel the difference ?

The exemples you give are not instances of hate speech. They are instances of harrassment, and indeed they are frightening and despicable. Threatening a woman to rape her child is not "speech". It's a threat of rape. Very different.

Hate speech really means speaking against the Left and all its core beliefs. That's what "hate speech" is.

Contrary to what it alleges, "hate speech" is not illegal in the EU. Not yet, that is. The EU would love to make "hate speech" illegal, and it actively works in that direction. If, for instance, the Eurocrats want to import millions of Africans into Europe (which they do), and you hate the idea, then everything you say to that effect would be deemed to be "hate speech".

Google, Facebook and the others have no business delineating "hate" from "love", telling us whom we should love and whom we may hate, or even telling us that we should love everybody indiscriminately and hate no one.

That would be akin to the telephone company dictating what you have the right to say to people over the phone. Wouldn't you hate that ?

Can you say "slippery slope?"

Tell me again who gets to determine what is "hate speech," then tell me what a "reasonable human being" is.

It certainly is a sad state of affairs when one human being can't respectfully disagree with another human being, to the point of threatening personal safety or the ability to earn an income.

Human beings can't objectively determine the hurtful from the snark. Computers are programmed by these very humans... check out the flap over liberal vs conservative speech at Facebook.

I don't believe that the First Amendment protects threatening speech. And by and by, the First Amendment protection doesn't apply to the internet anyway. Each internet forum has some sort of rules for posting that protects the corporate entity from lawsuits. Most of these rules have been upheld in court.

I fail to see the point of trying to curtail trolls. Not only is it not going to work, regular people are going to get caught up in this religious zeal to "combat hate speech".

Who cares if somebody says something mean to you? Ignore or block them. We have these features for a reason, and having some third party entity step in and try to stop it from happening is just going to fail. If people can't handle the banter, then that's on them.

When youtube updated last month they changed their privacy filter. I used it before to filter p**n, etc, from appearing in my feed. Now it seems, they are using it differently. I have had 2 p**n "recommended" appear on my feed. I tried to change settings to private, youtube would not let me comment to the video I was watching. I don't watch any sort of adult context. I had to remove private setting to warn the provider of what was happening. What is youtube really using their new settings for, I wonder?