| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| AnonJr | Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 11:27:22
Sadly this has been a frequent topic at work these days - but that's another story. 
What made me think about it was this rather interesting TechDirt article:
quote:
You Can't Legislate Stupidity Away... But Can You Automate It Away?
from the someone's-trying dept
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Nov 9th 2007 7:31pm
For years, we've pointed out that, as much as politicians try, you simply cannot legislate stupidity away. However, could you automate it away? Apparently that's what some programmers are working on, trying to come up with a spam filter-like system to automatically detect and quarantine "stupid" comments in forums and blog comments. As someone who spends way too much time reading the comments around here, there is some appeal in the concept of such a thing. But, the reality is that it's unlikely to work. Stupidity will no doubt route around any such filters pretty quickly. Besides, it sounds like it would really only catch the blindingly obvious stupid comments anyway, rather than the more frustrating and more common variety: which are comments from people who read what they want something to say, rather than what it actually says. What we really need is not a stupidity filter, but a comment troll filter -- or perhaps just a great big lesson in reading comprehension.
As much as I'd like to hope it can be made, I just don't see this as fixing the problem. One commenter suggested that the real problem is the constant pandering to the lowest common denominator. Others were either demonstrating their lack of reading comprehension or making ironic points - I couldn't really tell.... which is kinda the real problem with the idiot filter as it stands today.
The full article that inspired the TechDirt post is worth reading. [link] |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Shredhead | Posted - 21 Nov 2007 : 01:46:18
Nooo , I mean the tv show , COPS..... although both of the above seem to set a new benchmark for stupidity lol . |
| AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 20 Nov 2007 : 15:12:25
Hmmmm....I find it interesting that you drew an association between Hillary Clinton and the police...Freudian slip?.... |
| Shredhead | Posted - 20 Nov 2007 : 01:07:45
I'll try not to , but we do get " COPS " down here , so it may be a bit difficult . |
| AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 19 Nov 2007 : 14:05:12
We shall see just how stupid the American people are, if she wins the Presidency. But don't judge us all by the President. |
| Shredhead | Posted - 17 Nov 2007 : 16:08:52
Sort of..... " by the stupid , for the stupid " ? |
| AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 16 Nov 2007 : 20:46:54
quote:
We'll wait & see if she gets elected ...... Oh , but if she does that would mean...hmm lol .
Yes...it would mean that you cannot legislate stupid...you vote it in.... |
| Shredhead | Posted - 16 Nov 2007 : 18:04:34
Hmmm , that could be the definitive " stupid test " . We'll wait & see if she gets elected ...... Oh , but if she does that would mean...hmm lol . |
| AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 16 Nov 2007 : 17:15:41
quote:
Oh reeeeeally ?
I may be wrong , but last time I looked , Hillary Clinton was on your ballot paper
Sadly, I cannot really argue with that....EXCEPT that she hasn't won the nomination yet...so she's not on the ballot paper yet...Toilet paper, maybe, but not the ballot.... |
| Shredhead | Posted - 16 Nov 2007 : 15:00:04
quote:
Besides we're all guys here... We should already be well aquainted with the art of ignoring and ignorances
Either your couch is really comfortable , or Mrs Blasto never looks in on this forum LOL . |
| Captain Blasto | Posted - 16 Nov 2007 : 05:00:36
quote:
Many forums have a staff of moderators that prune out (most of) the stupid/off-topic/offensive/against policy posts - as stated in the terms of use for those forums - is that Orwellian censorship?
Ummm.... definitely could be... I mean the paramaters regarding all of those things ("the stupid/off-topic/offensive/against policy posts") can be rather subjective in the mind of the "pruner"...
and lets not forget... what of the prunee? If you don't get to see all of their posts (including their moronic posts) then you might think that we... I mean.. that THEY have a brain.... I think that an "ignore" feature is more appropriate. Then each individual can decide if they want to subject themself to the various (bufoonaries?)and other related (nonsensicalities?) ...and the like... Besides we're all guys here... We should already be well aquainted with the art of ignoring and ignorances |
| Shredhead | Posted - 16 Nov 2007 : 02:09:27
quote:
If there was a stupidity filter, there wouldn't be any Aussies, either...lol
Oh reeeeeally ?
I may be wrong , but last time I looked , Hillary Clinton was on your ballot paper 
quote:
Shreadhead,
I don't know if he's an Aussie or not, but if the DOT started to filter stupidity nothing would get done.
I understand Anon ......... but couldn't the band just practice at Wills' place ? |
| AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 15 Nov 2007 : 16:55:44
If there was a stupidity filter, there wouldn't be any Aussies, either...lol  |
| AnonJr | Posted - 15 Nov 2007 : 06:59:00
Cap'n,
While I don't think it will ever get accurate enough to reliably filter the comments (or even come close to being reliable), I'm not sure that it would be Orwellian - with all the connotation that comes with it. Most likely if it ever sees the light of production, it will probably err on the side of caution - just like the spam filters used in a lot of e-mail services.... and we see how well that works.
Incidentally, we already have automatic filters in here to keep the spammers from registering for the forums. Is that Orwellian censorship? Many forums have a staff of moderators that prune out (most of) the stupid/off-topic/offensive/against policy posts - as stated in the terms of use for those forums - is that Orwellian censorship?
Please understand that I'm all for free speech, and I don't want to see the "thought police" spring up out of someones best intentions. On the other hand, I'd love to see people learn that there are consequences for acting like an idiot on the 'net just like there are (most of the time) in the real world.
Shreadhead,
I don't know if he's an Aussie or not, but if the DOT started to filter stupidity nothing would get done.  |
| Shredhead | Posted - 15 Nov 2007 : 04:04:47
I think it's a great idea....... is the inventor Australian lol .
I wonder , is there anyway to link it to the Dept of Transport , sorry , DMV . |
| Captain Blasto | Posted - 14 Nov 2007 : 23:04:52
Why censor them? I mean idiots are people too.... or is it people are idiots too? Anyway the thought of thoughts being censored via automation seems a tad Orwellian and could result in squelching some legitimate posts in the process... either unintentionally or otherwise... |
| AnonJr | Posted - 12 Nov 2007 : 06:43:17
Penny Arcade did a comic on this (the original topic ) that suggested that its the combination of anonymity and a large audience that seems to bring out the worst in people. I'd link to it but its a little on the profane side...
As a side note, the original article mentioned that they are using the comments from YouTube to test their filters. Think they've got enough material to work with? I'm thinking the signal-to-noise ratio is going to be a little too far off to properly train the program. |
| AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 12:11:47
You know, I less and less inclined to believe that the are more stupid people, but more people who are really smart but choose the stupid things because they will not admit what their real opinions are.
Case in point: The last Democratic debate where Hillary Clinton was asked whether or not she supported the New York Governor's idea to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. At first, she indicated she did support it, but when she was challenged, she said she "didn't say she supported the idea..."
It is true, she did not actually say the words, but she did openly indicate that she thought the idea was a sound one. I do not believe Hillary Clinton is an imbecile (although I DO believe her liberal ideas are), because she is smart enough to know that if she actually articulated her liberal ideas, the majority of Americans would not support them. She is also smart enough to know how to manipulate the outflow of information so that she appears consistent on her agenda.
I realize that this is somewhat of a rabbit trail, and really has little to do with Anon's post, but I just think that, as Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does." What I worry about are the smart ones. |
Media
