Google launches new anti-troll AI to the internet. And trolls troll right back with Operation Google.

[vanished]

Eventually this will happen ,but for now it looks like Google's AIs are better at playing Go than filtering comments  

[spartaman64]

15 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

You have every right to be offended by simple words. What it's happening here is that people want to impose their right to be offended unto others, effectively silencing them.

 

Yeah go ahead and claim how Google is a free private enterprise and how it can't be censorship. I'm used to people missing the point which is this: There is a very real, very concrete and very deliberate effort on the part of the Regressive Left to basically police language and force everyone through various means to conform to what they think. If they think something is sexist, something is racist, something is islamophobic, they want it gone from the public view. 

 

People are actively trying to undermine free speech by demanding safe spaces, by being crybullies that sue people, dox people, try to get them fired from their jobs, try to make them outcasts in the eyes of public opinion simply because they don't share their political ideas about merely SAYING the word Niger regardless of context, regardless of the irrational stupidity of some people being allowed to say Niger because they have the right amount of melanine on their skin.

 

I like to excercise my right to critize said behavior and defend the right to be a fucking asshole to whoever I want to fight back against the every increasing desire for others to put their feelings above my freedom.

 

15 hours ago, SaladFingers said:

Well said.

 

9 hours ago, SeriousDad69 said:

Leftists love free speech when it suits them, call it hate speech when it doesn't. Google already has a history of trying to influence public opinion by altering search results. SourceFed did a story about Google trying to steer people away from negative Hilary Clinton search results some months ago.

 

9 hours ago, SurvivorNVL said:

I remember a time when being a victim meant something physically happened to you.  People are weak in the modern era.  People are so caught up in the falsehood of protecting others and having a safer society free of the harsh-realities of words.  Meanwhile in my new city I hear the rioters chanting, "Black cities for black people, white cities for white devils."  I must now take immediate offense at their want for segregation, file a formal complaint, and now--as well, start a patreon, because I feel oppressed! 

" No harassment, discrimination or abuse of any kind.

• This includes insults, fanboy, or troll accusations

No Trolling

• This includes flame wars such as Microsoft vs Apple, NVIDIA vs AMD, Intel vs AMD"

what is this LMG is trying to limit our free speech and are being politically correct gasp the horror /s

 

also its their platform so they can do what ever they want with it. 

[AresKrieger]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

 

 

Let's be honest the community standards are more so guidelines, they are only really invoked if something illegal or questionably legal is discussed or if threads become flame wars, or if it's something blatant.

[spartaman64]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

Let's be honest the community standards are more so guidelines, they are only really invoked if something illegal or questionably legal is discussed or if threads become flame wars, or if it's something blatant.

no if you call me the n word as other people brought up in this thread and i flag it you will either get a really stern warning or get banned. they are not just loose guidelines they are actually meant to be followed

[spartaman64]

if google offered a service to hide "troll" comments and prove that it works reasonably well i would opt in immediately not because im super sensitive but because its fucking annoying seeing all the KYS and drink bleach comments

[AresKrieger]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

no if you call me the n word as other people brought up in this thread and i flag it you will either get a really stern warning or get banned. they are not just loose guidelines they are actually meant to be followed

That would considered blatant, but the key difference between LTT and google is that we agreed to the rules when signing up, with google that is not entirely true except with their services, also trolling is still fairly tolerated and insults that aren't so politically unacceptable/overly aggressive are also tolerated to a limited degree, specifically calling people out for such things as mentioned in the rules you copied seems relatively irrelevant to the mods as it doesn't cause issues normally.

 

If we want completely free speech there are indeed places for it, but there is a balance a site maintains unless it want's to become like 4chan

 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

That would considered blatant, but the key difference between LTT and google is that we agreed to the rules when signing up, with google that is not entirely true except with their services, also trolling is still fairly tolerated and insults that aren't so politically unacceptable/overly aggressive are also tolerated to a limited degree, specifically calling people out for such things as mentioned in the rules you copied seems relatively irrelevant to the mods as it doesn't cause issues normally.

 

If we want completely free speech there are indeed places for it, but there is a balance a site maintains unless it want's to become like 4chan

 

even if LTT didnt set up any rules or if they decide to ban a member for no reason it is within their rights to do so just like it is within google's rights to do this as long as it is within their platform

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

if google offered a service to hide "troll" comments and prove that it works reasonably well i would opt in immediately not because im super sensitive but because its fucking annoying seeing all the KYS and drink bleach comments

Google could also decide an entire political spectrum is considered trolling and mass censor.  Everything is about censorship possibility.  It's better for it all to be open, people to harden up, and deal with others having opinions or harsh criticisms.  Everyone thinks differently, and honestly--they can always just turn off their computer.  I still believe the internet should be entirely decentralized and with smaller localized networks more readily available.  Community, county, and state level networks on top of the global one.  Global network - completely untouched, wild west and that would simply be the "Greater Internet".

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

even if LTT didnt set up any rules or if they decide to ban a member for no reason it is within their rights to do so just like it is within google's rights to do this as long as it is within their platform

The problem is how prevalent and used their platform is.  There is barely any modern internet without Google or a Google service.  Their use of these tactics and the possibility of censorship is a major issue given the vast majority of the internet and users, go through Google at one point or another or for -everything-.  Hell, they're my internet provider.  

[AresKrieger]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

even if LTT didnt set up any rules or if they decide to ban a member for no reason it is within their rights to do so just like it is within google's rights to do this as long as it is within their platform

This is also true, however it could be argued that due to Google's ubiquitous it should remain uncensored at least by base  in search results and such, for their own platforms they can and do whatever they want and though I don't like those actions often enough they are more acceptable than arbitrary censorship.

[spartaman64]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

Google could also decide an entire political spectrum is considered trolling and mass censor.  Everything is about censorship possibility.  It's better for it all to be open, people to harden up, and deal with others having opinions or harsh criticisms.  Everyone thinks differently, and honestly--they can always just turn off their computer.  I still believe the internet should be entirely decentralized and with smaller localized networks more readily available.  Community, county, and state level networks on top of the global one.  Global network - completely untouched, wild west and that would simply be the "Greater Internet".

and they can do that also. google != the internet. and do you want to start a petition to remove those few lines from the LTT CoC

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

and they can do that also. google != the internet. and do you want to start a petition to remove those few lines from the LTT CoC

It might as well be the internet at this point

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

and they can do that also. google != the internet. and do you want to start a petition to remove those few lines from the LTT CoC

LTT is welcome to police themselves as they do.  Google on the other hand, due to their level of influence, and actual majority of the internet population - has the duty, or should be forced the duty to keep itself and all the content passing through it - neutral, purely neutral.  No censorship, no preference in politics, no anything.  It provides the links, it gives you the direction and it's all on you from there.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, SurvivorNVL said:

The problem is how prevalent and used their platform is.  There is barely any modern internet without Google or a Google service.  Their use of these tactics and the possibility of censorship is a major issue given the vast majority of the internet and users, go through Google at one point or another or for -everything-.  Hell, they're my internet provider.  

 

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

This is also true, however it could be argued that due to Google's ubiquitous it should remain uncensored at least by base at least in search results and such, for their own platforms they can and do whatever they want and though I don't like those actions often enough they are more acceptable that arbitrary censorship.

if you are talking about legality there is no question that google is allowed to do this. but if you are arguing about whether they should i am mostly in agreement with you though I would like it to be an opt in service for days when i dont want to deal with BS

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

LTT is welcome to police themselves as they do.  Google on the other hand, due to their level of influence, and actual majority of the internet population - has the duty, or should be forced the duty to keep itself and all the content passing through it - neutral, purely neutral.  No censorship, no preference in politics, no anything.  It provides the links, it gives you the direction and it's all on you from there.

there are other indexing services like yahoo, bing, etc. also you are saying if LTT gets 1/2 of the world population to join then they should remove the CoC? it doesnt work that way

[SurvivorNVL]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

there are other indexing services like yahoo, bing, etc. also you are saying if LTT gets 1/2 of the world population to join then they should remove the CoC

I am, actually.  I believe it may as well become a wild west, but that'll never happen because LTT doesn't service more than a relatively niche group of people on the scale of Humanity.  

I wish there was an open-source search engine, though.  Linux + open source search = A+

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

I am, actually.  I believe it may as well become a wild west, but that'll never happen because LTT doesn't service more than a relatively niche group of people on the scale of Humanity.  

I wish there was an open-source search engine, though.  Linux + open source search = A+

i still dont understand why should the standards change from the number of people using the service. it shouldnt matter if 1 person uses google or a trillion people use google they should have the same policy because what the right thing to do doesnt change based on number of people. if you think having the CoC is a bad thing then its a bad thing no matter the amount of people that uses LTT forum

[stconquest]

12 hours ago, Prysin said:

Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? The ability to retell history as it was, rather then how we later "wanted it to be"?

 

Also, the N word as it is in modern day was first used by the south african apartheid regime, and yes it was a demeaning word, however there is still several equally bad words depicting other races that is not banned, just frowned upon. So why is one race entitled to more gentle language then others?

 

Oh wait, you are going to use the slavery argument, right?
Well, during the slavery era, the correct term was "negro" which is a derivation of the latin word "Niger " , meaning black. It also had undertones of racism tied to it, but it was a "public race name" more then a curse word back then.

Indeed slavery was bad, but the majority of african slaves WAS SOLD TO BRAZIL, NOT THE US. Infact, there was almost three times more WHITE slaves, specifically Irish slaves in the US. You don't see people treating the Irish like their fragile snowflakes. Oh no, they still get ridiculed to this day.

 

The only reason the N word is banned, is because someone, somewhere decided THEY didnt like it. The rest of us has been indoctrined to follow said decision by means of legal repercursions.

 

And seeing as you are Norwegian, you know as well as me that there is A LOT of words that are banned here. "Hottentotter", which is sort of norwegian word of the N word, is banned. DESPITE IT BEING THE LEGITIMATE NAME OF A AFRICAN TRIBE THAT STILL EXISTS.

So we cannot talk about those.

Mulatt, the norwegian word for "latino/half black half white". Also banned and can cause you severe social issues, and legal ones, for using. Despite it being a legitimate description of a shade of skin color. Mulatt is however not considered the "politically correct answer", despite, to my knowledge, not being used as a racial slur in norway.

 

These are but a couple of examples, there are more.

The point is, IT ALL STARTS WITH ONE WORD. And once you successfully ban one of them, there isnt going to take much effort to ban another one.

 

The Internet, for better or worse, is the only true bastion of free speech left. There is no other place on earth, not even antartica, where you can utter every word you know, without severe legal or social repercursions. That is worrying, especially considering that every "western country", and many many others all consider free speech to be a legitimate RIGHT. 

 

Now, i do not condone using these kind of slurs "just because you can", there is a time and place for everything, but i certainly do not condone the intent of censoring everyone in the world.

C'mon, what is this shit?

 

If I turn to a black person and refer to them as "monkey" simply because of their skin colour, it is just as bad as nigger.  Context is everything and having the freedom of speech teaches those capable of understanding this, exactly that.  It is not the word you use, but how you use it.

 

I don't get offended by derogatory terms being drummed out by idiots... but fuck does it ever get on my nerves after a while. 

 

 

Side Note - Ever since hearing Trump talk shit about PC culture I have been doing mental back flips to wrap my head around the concept:

 

Let's say you are walking down the street to a bus stop.  You arrive and someone else is there. 

 

You say hello.  This is politically correct.

 

You say nothing.  This is politically correct.

 

You tell them you are going to hunt them down and kill their family dog.  This is not politically correct.

 

PC means the language you use, and ideas you promote do not relate to doing harm to others.  That is what our laws/policies should be for, not doing harm to others... to keep things on equal footing for each individual. 

 

There is nothing wrong with being PC.  There is something wrong with not being PC, namely being "incorrect".  So why this edgy movement to run around saying:  I am tired of correctness in my society?  #rebelwithoutaclue

 

Just seems stupid, that's all.

[patrickjp93]

19 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

But how can an AI recognize what is an attack and what is not, a lot of adults can't do it.

What about quotes? What about satire?

It's all about context, and it's why we've gone from machine learning to deep learning being the hot button AI topic. Just as Gustafson predicted: as computers get more powerful, more difficult things will be computed.

 

Deep learning is about teaching AIs through experimentation and context, but generally it can only be done after you run a classic training algorithm and get a solid base to work from and nuance.

[CAPCOM UK]

18 hours ago, FakezZ said:

Ohhhh yeah because the black people that live now personally experienced slavery and they have a right to be offended. It is like a Greek like me hating the Turks because we were under their command for like 400 years. But that's stupid because they did nothing wrong to me. Just like it is stupid getting angry at a word that has a history from like 200 years ago. Also the pen is mightier than the sword, but I am sure this quote does not mean people that get triggered by a word. More like the ideas that get expressed through words are as powerful as a sword. Thanks for knowing about my intelligence or education and making assumptions without even knowing me. I could say that offended me and your post should be censored, but no thank you I am a sensible person

 

Born in 1998.

 

Checks out.

[Energycore]

I don't care how many transistors you have in your supercomputer. You will not outsmart 4chan.

[FakezZ]

1 hour ago, CAPCOM UK said:

 

Born in 1998.

 

Checks out.

What checks out?

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

C'mon, what is this shit?

 

If I turn to a black person and refer to them as "monkey" simply because of their skin colour, it is just as bad as nigger.  Context is everything and having the freedom of speech teaches those capable of understanding this, exactly that.  It is not the word you use, but how you use it.

 

I don't get offended by derogatory terms being drummed out by idiots... but fuck does it ever get on my nerves after a while. 

 

 

Side Note - Ever since hearing Trump talk shit about PC culture I have been doing mental back flips to wrap my head around the concept:

 

Let's say you are walking down the street to a bus stop.  You arrive and someone else is there. 

 

You say hello.  This is politically correct.

 

You say nothing.  This is politically correct.

 

You tell them you are going to hunt them down and kill their family dog.  This is not politically correct.

 

PC means the language you use, and ideas you promote do not relate to doing harm to others.  That is what our laws/policies should be for, not doing harm to others... to keep things on equal footing for each individual. 

 

There is nothing wrong with being PC.  There is something wrong with not being PC, namely being "incorrect".  So why this edgy movement to run around saying:  I am tired of correctness in my society?  #rebelwithoutaclue

 

Just seems stupid, that's all.

You are misunderstanding the whole point of my post. Then again, given your reply i am not sure you ever will.

[stconquest]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

You are misunderstanding the whole point of my post. Then again, given your reply i am not sure you ever will.

[LAwLz]

21 hours ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Because there are plenty of alternatives that aren't solely meant to disparage and incite anger?

 

Name ONE benefit of using the 6-letter N word in place of "black". One single reason.

At the risk of sounding like a racist, I can think of plenty of reasons why someone might want to use the word nigger.

It's the same reason why we use any swearwords, and that's emphasis or intention to hurt. If you're really mad at some black person then you shouting "you black person!" will sound really silly, but if you shout "you nigger" then all of a sudden the sentence has a real impact, because of the history.

"Shut up" and "shut the fuck up" have two different levels of seriousness to them as well.

 

Like someone at /pol/ was hinting at but never said is that it's not the words that are bad, it's the intent. Some people are probably wincing that I used "the n word" in this post but I don't think that's a problem, because it was not used with the intent of hurting someone. It was used for emphasis.

And that's what the person at /pol/ was getting at. You can ban words if you want, but as long as people have the intent of hurting others then will just start using other words to express their thoughts/feelings.

In the last couple of years "white male" has become a derogatory term used by SJWs.

 

Speaking of "white male", I find that phrase offensive because it is often used by SJWs with the intention to hurt/belittle someone. Does that mean that the phrase should be added to the list of "bad words" we are no longer allowed to say? If it's not, why not? Why is "white male" OK but "nigger" not OK? Who gets to decide that? To me, the phrase "white male" is more offensive. Aren't my feelings just as important to protect as those of a black person?

So different people will find different things offensive, so where do we draw the line? You can find people being offended by essentially anything, so we can't just cater to the lowest common denominator because then all speech would be banned.