America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by gryphonms. 43 replies replies.
Better start using the sarcasm smiley a little more...
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
Think Think


Feds creating database to track ‘hate speech’ on Twitter
August 26, 2014

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.”

“The open-source platform we develop will be made publicly available and will be extensible to ever more research areas as a greater preponderance of human activities are replicated online,” it continues. “Additionally, we will create a web service open to the public for monitoring trends, bursts, and suspicious memes.”

“This service could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate,” the grant said.

Think Think
opelmanta1900 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
sooooooooooooo.... big brother is watching?
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
That's what I heard... Mellow
Abrignac Online
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,327
Another complete was of tax $$$.
TrishS@CigarBid Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-13-2001
Posts: 3,172
Abrignac wrote:
Another complete was of tax $$$.


^^ This and that little part of the Constitution that says something about Freedom of Speech. I mean, once we track it, what are we going to do with it? Just keep looking at it? I doubt it...

Wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this government it created
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
they'd prolly break out the ban hammer.... Mellow


Sarcasm
Abrignac Online
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,327
TrishS@CigarBid wrote:
^^ This and that little part of the Constitution that says something about Freedom of Speech. I mean, once we track it, what are we going to do with it? Just keep looking at it? I doubt it...

Wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this government it created


Not trying to be snarky Trish, but one of the mods edited one of my posts. In essence giving me credit for a post where my words were changed by someone else, but making it appear as if I wrote it. Though it was benign, I'm thinking this a perfect example of why mods shouldn't edit another persons post. Perhaps deleting it would be a better choice.

DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
sounds kinda snarky to me....... Mellow






Sarcasm
kombat96 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 04-12-2010
Posts: 9,717
Twitter the next downside of brains
ZRX1200 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Trish the US Supreme Court decided that propaganda was legal. So via the Patriot act a US citizen can be murdered without trial and due process, secret courts can authorize unconstitutional surveillance. And the whole time they can use propagandize their actions

But watch what you say on twitter.... the feds may find you owe them more than $3.75!
kombat96 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 04-12-2010
Posts: 9,717
Cbid is big sister
TrishS@CigarBid Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-13-2001
Posts: 3,172
Abrignac wrote:
Not trying to be snarky Trish, but one of the mods edited one of my posts. In essence giving me credit for a post where my words were changed by someone else, but making it appear as if I wrote it. Though it was benign, I'm thinking this a perfect example of why mods shouldn't edit another persons post. Perhaps deleting it would be a better choice.



I modified it. I didn't realize that I should allow competitor reference because YOU posted it. I'll do better next time...
Sarcasm

This is a no-win situation. If I delete your response, everyone questions it. If I edit the post, you question it. If I leave the competitor reference, then its ok for everyone to do it all the time....

I really think this was a mountain-molehill thing. But I deleted it as you requested.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
If you read the article carefully you'll realize that this isn't a federal agency. They try to imply it is. But it's simply a grant from the NSF (National Science Foundation). This is an Indiana University database....

The article likes to imply that this is some sort of big brother, "NSA is spying on us and collecting everything we do" thing. But it's really nothing more interesting than Snopes or some other similar site which catalogs false ideas, memes etc. This is just developing a software front-end to make it more efficient.

The NSF providing money? Well, if you look carefully, the person developing it asked the NSF for money and successfully defended the idea that it would be beneficial.
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TrishS@CigarBid wrote:


This is a no-win situation. If I delete your response, everyone questions it. If I edit the post, you question it. If I leave the competitor reference, then its ok for everyone to do it all the time....

I really think this was a mountain-molehill thing. But I deleted it as you requested.

Next time he whines about it just change his whole post to "I love Trish. I love Trish"... It's what he really is trying to say anyway.
Burner02 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Simple, don't use twitter.
kombat96 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-12-2010
Posts: 9,717
Dumbass kids use twitter, why is this a big deal.
jackconrad Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
FHerfing CKING BGonz STARDS!
Abrignac Online
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,327
TrishS@CigarBid wrote:
I modified it. I didn't realize that I should allow competitor reference because YOU posted it. I'll do better next time...
Sarcasm

This is a no-win situation. If I delete your response, everyone questions it. If I edit the post, you question it. If I leave the competitor reference, then its ok for everyone to do it all the time....

I really think this was a mountain-molehill thing. But I deleted it as you requested.


I didn't realize a forum only site would be considered a competitor. Again, mountian-molehill.
HockeyDad Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,163
Are there really universities in Indiana?! Sounds like a cover story.
victor809 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
Are there really universities in Indiana?! Sounds like a cover story.


Notre Dame... that's about it for anything of quality. And I'm a little on the fence about whether ND teaches anything either.
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
victor809 wrote:
Notre Dame... that's about it for anything of quality. And I'm a little on the fence about whether ND teaches anything either.



ask Rudy.... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
victor809 wrote:
If you read the article carefully you'll realize that this isn't a federal agency. They try to imply it is. But it's simply a grant from the NSF (National Science Foundation). This is an Indiana University database....

The article likes to imply that this is some sort of big brother, "NSA is spying on us and collecting everything we do" thing. But it's really nothing more interesting than Snopes or some other similar site which catalogs false ideas, memes etc. This is just developing a software front-end to make it more efficient.

The NSF providing money? Well, if you look carefully, the person developing it asked the NSF for money and successfully defended the idea that it would be beneficial.




that's exactly what they want you to think..... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
If you read the article carefully you'll realize that this isn't a federal agency. They try to imply it is. But it's simply a grant from the NSF (National Science Foundation). This is an Indiana University database....

The article likes to imply that this is some sort of big brother, "NSA is spying on us and collecting everything we do" thing. But it's really nothing more interesting than Snopes or some other similar site which catalogs false ideas, memes etc. This is just developing a software front-end to make it more efficient.

The NSF providing money? Well, if you look carefully, the person developing it asked the NSF for money and successfully defended the idea that it would be beneficial.


While you speak the truth, you ignore the fact that federal funds are being used here.
So whether the feds are doing this directly, or through the NSF and some fictional university in Indiana doesn't really change the fact that our tax dollars are paying for it.
And it sounds like it very well could be used to target perpetrators of online hate speech, even if that isn't the officially specified intent.

It's a good thing I trust fully our elected officials on the hill.




DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
If anyone cares they could answer those questions by actually looking at the grant. But it is more fun to read a poorly written article then argue about it on a cigar forum.
DrafterX Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
true... true... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
If anyone cares they could answer those questions by actually looking at the grant. But it is more fun to read a poorly written article then argue about it on a cigar forum.


I'm against grants such as this one.
DrafterX Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
racist.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
If anyone cares they could answer those questions by actually looking at the grant. But it is more fun to read a poorly written article then argue about it on a cigar forum.


I'm guessing most people don't bother reading anything more than the title of the article (which implies that the federal gov't has an army of pre-teen girls scouring twitter and creating a database of all our free speech). Do you really think they even got as far as the word "grant"?
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
While you speak the truth, you ignore the fact that federal funds are being used here.
So whether the feds are doing this directly, or through the NSF and some fictional university in Indiana doesn't really change the fact that our tax dollars are paying for it.
And it sounds like it very well could be used to target perpetrators of online hate speech, even if that isn't the officially specified intent.

It's a good thing I trust fully our elected officials on the hill.



It's a grant. The gov't doesn't "get" the database at the end.
When a grant is provided to research a cure for cancer, the Gov't doesn't get the cure to distribute as they want.

And the activities aren't anything that a normal person couldn't do without gov't funding. The people aren't hacking twitter accounts to find your private messages. They're collecting public tweets and collecting a database of it. It isn't significantly different than collecting a database of mens room graffiti and the location of each (fun fact, 55.7% of all mens room graffiti is TW's phone number).
gryphonms Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Drafter, I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced. The government is publicly stating there is a grant for developing Twitter information mining software. The NSA already has that information. The concern/outrage for me is about the NSA secretly data mining information about everyone. I do think this grant is a waste of taxpayer money, but that happens all the time.
wheelrite Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
I could care less...


wheel,
tailgater Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
It's a grant. The gov't doesn't "get" the database at the end.
When a grant is provided to research a cure for cancer, the Gov't doesn't get the cure to distribute as they want.

And the activities aren't anything that a normal person couldn't do without gov't funding. The people aren't hacking twitter accounts to find your private messages. They're collecting public tweets and collecting a database of it. It isn't significantly different than collecting a database of mens room graffiti and the location of each (fun fact, 55.7% of all mens room graffiti is TW's phone number).


This.

tailgater Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
wheelrite wrote:
I could care less...


wheel,


Could you?
teedubbya Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
tailgater wrote:
Could you?



I bet he could. He cared enough to post in here.
danmdevries Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,437
gryphonms wrote:
Drafter, I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced. The government is publicly stating there is a grant for developing Twitter information mining software. The NSA already has that information. The concern/outrage for me is about the NSA secretly data mining information about everyone. I do think this grant is a waste of taxpayer money, but that happens all the time.


I personally know several people that live off grants for their research, and live quite well.
gryphonms Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Dan, the majority of the grants make sense. Unfortunately there are others that do not.
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
gryphonms wrote:
Dan, the majority of the grants make sense. Unfortunately there are others that do not.


Uh, I think you've got that reversed.

victor809 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Uh, I think you've got that reversed.


You've been bitter about grants ever since they rejected your proposal to study the capacity of TW's anal cavity using biological and robotic probes.
teedubbya Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
victor809 wrote:
You've been bitter about grants ever since they rejected your proposal to study the capacity of TW's anal cavity using biological and robotic probes.



No need to fund that one! A couple of beers.....
victor809 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
No need to fund that one! A couple of beers.....


I think he needed the grant for "equipment" expenses.
2' vibrating schlongs don't come cheap you know.
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
victor809 wrote:
I think he needed the grant for "equipment" expenses.
2' vibrating schlongs don't come cheap you know.


On the other hand, when 2" comes cheap, we just call it TW. Badum-bum!

I'll be here all week folks, enjoy the veal.
gryphonms Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
The Catskills are so 1950.
Users browsing this topic
Guest