5 ms·

I don't understand that. Using a chef reference I made below, if you cooked a nice dinner, but someone didn't like the brussel sprouts, should they not have ea

by DougN7 11y ago

I don't understand that. Using a chef reference I made below, if you cooked a nice dinner, but someone didn't like the brussel sprouts, should they not have eaten anything and skipped your dinner party? If you listen to some of The Donald's speech, should you not be allowed to skip some of it? Why is art all-or-nothing?

callumlocke 11y ago
Those are very good counter examples. I wouldn't want someone to miss a whole dinner because they don't like sprouts :) I still feel like there's a difference though... At least the person can see the sprouts, they have the option, the chef can say "Ah go on, try some, they've got little bits of pancetta in them!" and maybe they try one, and maybe they realise sprouts are great! Or maybe they don't, but at least they considered it. Compare that to (bare with me) someone wearing magic AR goggles that somehow bleep out any mention of sprouts, and automatically pre-warn the chef to not put any sprouts on their plate and not to mention them. Absurdity aside, I think there's something insidious about people setting up automated filter bubbles for themselves and their children
- DougN7 11y ago
  > filter bubbles for themselves and their children We do that all the time. I don't let my kids watch some content because of their age. I filter their activities (don't let them drive until they're able). I try to filter what they eat (less junk food), and their waking hours (try to get them to go to bed). This is no different. It's all cost/benefit, and if some people think some content of any sort is not appropriate for them and their families, fine. But why not allow them the 95% of the content that they like? What if Netflix said you only got to watch a series if you guaranteed you'd watch every episode? The idea is preposterous.
  - callumlocke 11y ago
    The idea is preposterous. ...and not what I suggested. It feels like you didn't read my comment at all. We are talking about automated content filtering. This is all we are talking about. Not whether it's OK to stop watching a film you're not enjoying (of course it is), not 'rules in general' like driving regulations and bedtime. Just automated content filtering.
    - marco1 11y ago
      You may have misunderstood the project. There is nothing "automatic" in its filtering at all. You do have to adjust the filters precisely, manually, and can switch on or off every single feature.
- marco1 11y ago
  I feel that we don't have to resolve this issue by taking an even closer look at this analogy. We can instead focus on the pragmatic answers to your original question.
manachar 11y ago
Looking at a political speech... just skipping to some of it is an abhorrent idea. That's how you lose context and likely meaning to words. Without condoning or condemning Trump's speeches, skipping to just parts can radically change your impression of the man and his policies. This is a problem journalism faces when covering events. They try to edit down to the meaningful parts while retaining the meaning of the whole. I can't imagine that filtering out certain triggering phrases/words would allow you paint a fair picture of him or his policies.
- DougN7 11y ago
  You're saying the inverse of the OP's solution. He'd skip over 5%. You're arguing it's not OK to skip over 95%. Skipping 5% of a political speech would probably not be bad, especially if you knew before hand what you specifically didn't want to hear (because you knew what was going to be said). Maybe I've made up my mind on the war on Iraq and I just do not want to hear any more about it. If I don't care about a candidate's position on whether it was right or wrong, don't I have a right to skip that part of their speech?
- marco1 11y ago
  Nobody says you should apply this to political speeches, or sources where the context can be lost due to the cutting in general.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Why can't it just be fun? Here's Trump voiced in an East London accent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0
npsimons 11y ago
I consider both of those bad examples; in the first case, adults shouldn't be so picky. In the second, no, you shouldn't skip part of a candidate's speech, as you would then not be an informed voter.
- marco1 11y ago
  Thank you very much! I do also think that these two examples are not the best examplse we could come up with. And in no way do they demonstrate why the complete project should be useless for every use case. The only thing that they show (correctly, I have to say), is that there are some sources where filters and cuts can be harmful.

by DougN7 11y ago

callumlocke 11y ago

Those are very good counter examples. I wouldn't want someone to miss a whole dinner because they don't like sprouts :) I still feel like there's a difference though... At least the person can see the sprouts, they have the option, the chef can say "Ah go on, try some, they've got little bits of pancetta in them!" and maybe they try one, and maybe they realise sprouts are great! Or maybe they don't, but at least they considered it. Compare that to (bare with me) someone wearing magic AR goggles that somehow bleep out any mention of sprouts, and automatically pre-warn the chef to not put any sprouts on their plate and not to mention them. Absurdity aside, I think there's something insidious about people setting up automated filter bubbles for themselves and their children

DougN7 11y ago
> filter bubbles for themselves and their children We do that all the time. I don't let my kids watch some content because of their age. I filter their activities (don't let them drive until they're able). I try to filter what they eat (less junk food), and their waking hours (try to get them to go to bed). This is no different. It's all cost/benefit, and if some people think some content of any sort is not appropriate for them and their families, fine. But why not allow them the 95% of the content that they like? What if Netflix said you only got to watch a series if you guaranteed you'd watch every episode? The idea is preposterous.
- callumlocke 11y ago
  The idea is preposterous. ...and not what I suggested. It feels like you didn't read my comment at all. We are talking about automated content filtering. This is all we are talking about. Not whether it's OK to stop watching a film you're not enjoying (of course it is), not 'rules in general' like driving regulations and bedtime. Just automated content filtering.
  - marco1 11y ago
    You may have misunderstood the project. There is nothing "automatic" in its filtering at all. You do have to adjust the filters precisely, manually, and can switch on or off every single feature.
marco1 11y ago
I feel that we don't have to resolve this issue by taking an even closer look at this analogy. We can instead focus on the pragmatic answers to your original question.

manachar 11y ago

Looking at a political speech... just skipping to some of it is an abhorrent idea. That's how you lose context and likely meaning to words. Without condoning or condemning Trump's speeches, skipping to just parts can radically change your impression of the man and his policies. This is a problem journalism faces when covering events. They try to edit down to the meaningful parts while retaining the meaning of the whole. I can't imagine that filtering out certain triggering phrases/words would allow you paint a fair picture of him or his policies.

DougN7 11y ago
You're saying the inverse of the OP's solution. He'd skip over 5%. You're arguing it's not OK to skip over 95%. Skipping 5% of a political speech would probably not be bad, especially if you knew before hand what you specifically didn't want to hear (because you knew what was going to be said). Maybe I've made up my mind on the war on Iraq and I just do not want to hear any more about it. If I don't care about a candidate's position on whether it was right or wrong, don't I have a right to skip that part of their speech?
marco1 11y ago
Nobody says you should apply this to political speeches, or sources where the context can be lost due to the cutting in general.
DanBC 11y ago
Why can't it just be fun? Here's Trump voiced in an East London accent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0

npsimons 11y ago

I consider both of those bad examples; in the first case, adults shouldn't be so picky. In the second, no, you shouldn't skip part of a candidate's speech, as you would then not be an informed voter.

marco1 11y ago
Thank you very much! I do also think that these two examples are not the best examplse we could come up with. And in no way do they demonstrate why the complete project should be useless for every use case. The only thing that they show (correctly, I have to say), is that there are some sources where filters and cuts can be harmful.