[badc0ffee]

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]

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

[ryanackley]

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]

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.

[vintagedave]

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.

[StopDisinfo910]

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.

[NickHodges0702]

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]

the dog whistle tuning is absolutely over the top in its default setting.

[coleworld45]

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]

Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more?

(This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)