So the filter is to be politically convenient to the ruling party
In my opinion this is a useless endeavor and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Never in favor of these sort of privacy invasive project opens a pandoras box of where it could go in the future.
Topic: Fed.Gov. Spending $1 Million Creating Database To Track “Hate Speech” On Twitter (Read 1331 times)
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
August 31, 2014, 07:36:16 PM
August 31, 2014, 07:25:35 PM
The federal government has no business possessing a database like this. This is another nail in the coffin of free speech and the idea of freedom; do people need to face widespread persecution again before realizing how wrong this is?
August 30, 2014, 04:09:40 PM
The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.
The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.
The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”
The university has received $919,917 so far for the project.
“The project stands to benefit both the research community and the public significantly,” the grant states. “Our data will be made available via [application programming interfaces] APIs and include information on meme propagation networks, statistical data, and relevant user and content features.”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who defines what hate speech is? They should spend more time monitoring 4chan for the fun of it
August 29, 2014, 03:42:33 PM
I don't think this is a good use of government resources. People have the right to say whatever it is they want. It does not matter if what they are saying is not popular or if most people do not believe/agree with your viewpoint. Everyone in the US has the right to have their opinion and to try to sway others to share their views.
From what I can see this is just something that is going to be a way to stop/slow the spread of unpopular views and opinions.
From what I can see this is just something that is going to be a way to stop/slow the spread of unpopular views and opinions.
Not a good use of government resources? I would say more specifically that this is not a good use of the National Science Foundation's resources. I'd support it if they specifically tagged the people who are using Twitter to threaten violence or encourage others to commit violent acts against people they don't like. However, if somebody on Twitter says that Odumba is handling the ISIS situation all wrong and can we hurry up with impeachment proceedings if we're going to do it at all, that should not count as hate speech.
August 28, 2014, 12:12:23 PM
I wonder what their criteria is for defining "political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”
Is there an objective, scientific method for this?
Is there an objective, scientific method for this?
Anything that conflicts with the interests of corporations most likely
August 28, 2014, 12:07:37 PM
I don't think this is a good use of government resources. People have the right to say whatever it is they want. It does not matter if what they are saying is not popular or if most people do not believe/agree with your viewpoint. Everyone in the US has the right to have their opinion and to try to sway others to share their views.
From what I can see this is just something that is going to be a way to stop/slow the spread of unpopular views and opinions.
From what I can see this is just something that is going to be a way to stop/slow the spread of unpopular views and opinions.
Not a good use of government resources? I would say more specifically that this is not a good use of the National Science Foundation's resources. I'd support it if they specifically tagged the people who are using Twitter to threaten violence or encourage others to commit violent acts against people they don't like. However, if somebody on Twitter says that Odumba is handling the ISIS situation all wrong and can we hurry up with impeachment proceedings if we're going to do it at all, that should not count as hate speech.
August 27, 2014, 07:03:58 AM
Monitoring is senseless wasting of taxpayer's money, such kind of issues should be handled only if it's neccessary... Ie if there is a complaint which was sent to the prosecutor's office.
By the way, is there any definition of "hate speech" according to fed?
By the way, is there any definition of "hate speech" according to fed?
Yes. Not to mention most people use the internet to do useless stuffs anyway.
August 26, 2014, 07:20:11 AM
"Suspicious memes" lol. So I guess this will just be used to track or flag anyone who voices a political opinion they don't like. Criticise the US or Isreal and you'll probably end up on some terrorist watchlist and get given grief at every airport you ever use.
August 26, 2014, 06:48:12 AM
Monitoring is senseless wasting of taxpayer's money, such kind of issues should be handled only if it's neccessary... Ie if there is a complaint which was sent to the prosecutor's office.
By the way, is there any definition of "hate speech" according to fed?
By the way, is there any definition of "hate speech" according to fed?
August 26, 2014, 06:44:42 AM
Is the tracking limited to Twitter? What about facebook, and other free email service?
And what is the government going to do with the identified person?
And what is the government going to do with the identified person?
August 26, 2014, 12:48:16 AM
Sounds like just one more gov't medium for arbitrarily harassing people. What's wrong with existing laws?
Dark times are upon us
Dark times are upon us
August 25, 2014, 11:47:49 PM
They need a bigger budget, just the shit about "Creation Science" takes more space than they can afford...
August 25, 2014, 11:38:49 PM
Quote
The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”
Doesn't the US take part in astroturfing themselves?
August 25, 2014, 11:33:49 PM
I don't think this is a good use of government resources. People have the right to say whatever it is they want. It does not matter if what they are saying is not popular or if most people do not believe/agree with your viewpoint. Everyone in the US has the right to have their opinion and to try to sway others to share their views.
From what I can see this is just something that is going to be a way to stop/slow the spread of unpopular views and opinions.
From what I can see this is just something that is going to be a way to stop/slow the spread of unpopular views and opinions.
August 25, 2014, 11:01:24 PM
So, when are all the anti-west anti-majority hate speech getting censored? Or is it just to 'protect' against any that doesn't fit the pansy PC criteria?
August 25, 2014, 09:46:20 PM
I wonder what their criteria is for defining "political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”
Is there an objective, scientific method for this?
Is there an objective, scientific method for this?
August 25, 2014, 09:33:09 PM
The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.
The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.
The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”
The university has received $919,917 so far for the project.
“The project stands to benefit both the research community and the public significantly,” the grant states. “Our data will be made available via [application programming interfaces] APIs and include information on meme propagation networks, statistical data, and relevant user and content features.”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who defines what hate speech is? They should spend more time monitoring 4chan for the fun of it
Jump to: