4 ms·

This thing seems to be more about enforcing a political PoV than about avoiding logical fallacies. All my attempts to comment on the UBI article (and not suppo

This thing seems to be more about enforcing a political PoV than about avoiding logical fallacies. All my attempts to comment on the UBI article (and not supporting UBI) said my comment was a dogwhistle, and/or had an overly negative tone. This topic, of all things, is absolutely worthy to challenge and debate. Using this would have the effect of creating an echo chamber, where people who stay never benefit from having their ideas challenged.

esperent 8mo ago
Can you give some examples of comments you made which you feel were reasonable but got flagged?
vintagedave 8mo ago
Thankyou — I’d love to hear what you wrote, if you wouldn’t mind sharing? We’ve tried to aim it not to enforce any specific view — that’s a design goal — but focus on how it will feel to the other person. Also things like logical fallacies or other non-emotional flaws in comments (there’s a toxicity metric for example, or dogwhistles). An echo chamber is the exact opposite of what we want. There are too many already. What we hope for is guided communication so different views _can_ be expressed.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
NickHodges0702 8mo ago
If that is happening, that is a huge problem. We'll look at that right away. We specifically don't want that to be the case. We want to encourage healthy, productive debate. We may have the "dog-whistle" stuff over tuned.
- john_strinlai 8mo ago
  the dog whistle tuning is absolutely over the top in its default setting.
  - vintagedave 8mo ago
    Just turned it way down. I hope you find it better now!
  - NickHodges0702 8mo ago
    Thanks, I agree. We dialed it way down.
coleworld45 8mo ago
I wrote "Obama sucks" and got Dogwhistle, Low Score, Low Effort, Objectionable Phrases, and Negative Tone. I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone. Definitely a double standard baked in
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more? (This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)
  - coleworld45 8mo ago
    Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism. "Dogwhistle The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This reinforces harmful stereotypes and can contribute to a broader culture of disrespect and division."
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - coleworld45 8mo ago
        In other opinion polls they back up that he doesn't suck. Either way who cares? That's not what the app is supposed to be about if it's teaching/correcting you how to argue/debate better. You completely ignored the whole point of what I said, which is that even in a simple statement like "This person sucks" it added its own implicit connotations, namely that disliking someone who happens to be black is implicit racism. Imagine trying to learn how to really argue with that kind of teacher.
        8mo ago
ryaniscool 8mo ago
Yeah I feel like this will funnel everyone's opinion into sounding like it was written by an AI. Love the idea but the example they give with bears is absolutely hilarious. Calling bears dumb animals is offensive? God help us.
- vintagedave 8mo ago
  Hah, the idea is to have an example on the site that is not offensive -- we're not going to write something offensive down -- but where you can understand what it would be or could be. It lets you infer / understand the point without us actually writing something awful. (Maybe we can do it better, though.) Bears seemed a pretty inoffensive target, plus our backend uses Python with beartype and that library is all about bear jokes.
StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
It flagged me saying UBI by giving money to the rich was a form of negative transfers as "negativity" and said it was polarizing. I don't think it's ready for prime time.

esperent 8mo ago

Can you give some examples of comments you made which you feel were reasonable but got flagged?

vintagedave 8mo ago

Thankyou — I’d love to hear what you wrote, if you wouldn’t mind sharing? We’ve tried to aim it not to enforce any specific view — that’s a design goal — but focus on how it will feel to the other person. Also things like logical fallacies or other non-emotional flaws in comments (there’s a toxicity metric for example, or dogwhistles). An echo chamber is the exact opposite of what we want. There are too many already. What we hope for is guided communication so different views _can_ be expressed.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

NickHodges0702 8mo ago

If that is happening, that is a huge problem. We'll look at that right away. We specifically don't want that to be the case. We want to encourage healthy, productive debate. We may have the "dog-whistle" stuff over tuned.

john_strinlai 8mo ago
the dog whistle tuning is absolutely over the top in its default setting.
- vintagedave 8mo ago
  Just turned it way down. I hope you find it better now!
- NickHodges0702 8mo ago
  Thanks, I agree. We dialed it way down.

coleworld45 8mo ago

I wrote "Obama sucks" and got Dogwhistle, Low Score, Low Effort, Objectionable Phrases, and Negative Tone. I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone. Definitely a double standard baked in

ceejayoz 8mo ago
Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more? (This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)
- coleworld45 8mo ago
  Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism. "Dogwhistle The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This reinforces harmful stereotypes and can contribute to a broader culture of disrespect and division."
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - coleworld45 8mo ago
      In other opinion polls they back up that he doesn't suck. Either way who cares? That's not what the app is supposed to be about if it's teaching/correcting you how to argue/debate better. You completely ignored the whole point of what I said, which is that even in a simple statement like "This person sucks" it added its own implicit connotations, namely that disliking someone who happens to be black is implicit racism. Imagine trying to learn how to really argue with that kind of teacher.
      - 8mo ago

ryaniscool 8mo ago

Yeah I feel like this will funnel everyone's opinion into sounding like it was written by an AI. Love the idea but the example they give with bears is absolutely hilarious. Calling bears dumb animals is offensive? God help us.

vintagedave 8mo ago
Hah, the idea is to have an example on the site that is not offensive -- we're not going to write something offensive down -- but where you can understand what it would be or could be. It lets you infer / understand the point without us actually writing something awful. (Maybe we can do it better, though.) Bears seemed a pretty inoffensive target, plus our backend uses Python with beartype and that library is all about bear jokes.

StopDisinfo910 8mo ago

It flagged me saying UBI by giving money to the rich was a form of negative transfers as "negativity" and said it was polarizing. I don't think it's ready for prime time.