However, I did not manage to express any opinion on the transgender rights article, from any political perspective, without being flagged. On one of the comments I tested, it gave me a suggested revision from this:

"This is another move in a pattern of limiting the rights of anyone who isn't a MAGA supporter."

To this:

"This seems to continue a trend where certain groups feel their rights are being limited, which could affect many people beyond just MAGA supporters."

The first comment isn't substantive, but the second is even worse, adding so much equivocation that it's meaningless. To add insult to injury, the detector also flagged its own suggested revision. Even if it had gone through, accepting these revisions would mean flooding a platform with LLM-speak, which is not conducive to discussion.

Honest feedback: from a user perspective, the suggestions feel frustrating and patronizing, more so than if my comments were simply deleted. I would stop using a site that implemented this.

From a site operator perspective, the kind of discourse it incentivizes seems jagged, subject to much stricter rules if the LLM associates a topic with political controversy. It feels opinionated and unpredictable, and the revisions it suggests are not of a quality I would want on a discussion board. The focus on positive language in particular seems like a reductive view of quality; what is the point of using an LLM if it's only doing basic sentiment analysis?

As for equivocation, that should be strongly dialed down too. It annoyed me too, it was "mush", and did not help. I hope you'll find the current version a lot more human.

I'm grateful for the feedback! Changing it based on all these comments has been intense over the past couple of hours, but boy is it now significantly improved and I am super grateful to you and other commenters.

I agree, it shouldn't be like that.

I guess it isn't a surprise that politics will be the hardest topic to moderate.

We'll keep trying to get better. Your comment helps us know where to focus. Thanks.

e: To clarify my point, e.g. you can't calmly disagree with whether or not it's okay to shoot people in streets, that diminishes it as if it was just a slight disagreement

It would be better to gatekeep political communities with precisely worded "principle" questions and then flag for violations of those for anybody who slipped in under the radar.

Even political communities where everyone is nominally on the same page do break down over issues of tone, disingenuous arguments, etc. though.

Interesting on the ESL comment -- gaming it! Great idea!

Version 1: Rights of non-MAGA supporters are being eliminated while implying rights of MAGA supporters are being preserved.

Version 2: Rights of MAGA supporters are being eliminated with a side effect affecting non-MAGA supporters.

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.

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.

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.

I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone.

Definitely a double standard baked in

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

"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."

Avoiding that kind of comment is exactly what we are trying to do, actually.

Nothing in "Obama sucks" implied any kind of racism. If it's so baked in that with a simple phrase like that it reaches for dogwhistles, how can anyone trust the objectivity of this?

Very sensitive topic. We'll think hard on how to handle things like that.

I mean, in my opinion, Trump empirically sucks. Opinion polling backs me up! Should the model consider that more people consider one or the other to suck? Or should it ignore factual information to spare feelings? Which approach is more respectful to fellow commenters and the website owner?

(See also: X considering "cisgender" a slur. There's no shared reality on a lot of these things; trying to construct one gets deeply difficult.)

If it's teaching how to avoid logical fallacies, which includes appeals to the majority, the answer is an obvious 'no'.

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.

eg

* Noun1 is great.

* Noun2 is great.

Ideally would result in equal outcomes.

Do you really with your mind and with your heart believe that: - LLMs are fundamentally fit for this type of comprehension - Misjudgements posted in this thread are "bugs", "errors" - Agents who choose to act in bad faith will be anyhow affected - It is desirable by a majority of the group whose opinion you would even consider (is there such a group?), that everyone should have this kind of thing shoved into their face - Promotion of this kind of thing does not also promote (and help build) harsher censorship mechanisms

Do you think that every single thing you will ever say publicly from now on will be considered constructive by all future filters with all of their different biases and "bugs"? Do you think that this new "constructive speak" will not make you want to blow your brains out at some point? Do you not see it everywhere already and get nauseus from it? I would prefer trash talk to that - at least seldom honest and true. If you don't like the message - hide it, timeout the poster, block them or whatever - with your own agency. If you think they welcome education from you - dm them a book.

Or perhaps you imagine yourselves as above that kind of filtering? Then there is no question.

Also, nothing new under the sun. Can't remember exactly but I saw not long ago on a medical platform a review filtering system. It "isn't" censhorship per say, of course, the same as your idea. Only, you can't post a review you want - only a much more milder version (and therefore useless) with transformations akin: "This thing doesn't work" -> "I felt like this thing didn't work for me in this instance, but there were such an such positives". Way to go - turning everything into "we are sorry you feel that way".

The hidden comments are from people in the Top 1000 by word count (who I usually don't want to hear from but if there is not much content I might click to toggle). The blocked are people I've seen argue with others in a useless way because they don't understand them or because they're just re-litigating or whatever (which I cannot toggle). I think it would be cool if people all published their blocklists and I'd pull from those I trust. Sometimes I open HN on my phone through the browser and I'm baffled by all these responses I got which are useless.

I'm surprised by how much more high quality comment threads are now to me and I frequently find that I want to respond to everyone. It's like in old-school mailing lists or forums where you were having a conversation so the other people are worth talking to.

Attention is precious and I wouldn't want to waste it on boring things. And it goes both ways. I communicate incompletely and there are people out there who get what I'm saying and there are people who need me to be more explicit. I would prefer that the latter and people who find me boring just block me.

Sure, you may no longer see the noise, but that means that newcomers to your community do and have to deal with it. When you have a giant blocklist, you are ignoring your duty to police your own community.

Then there is the issue of people blocking people who are simply more tolerant than they are. Hiding speech that is challenging to your personal views is a different kind of disaster.

The community has some loose norms and I'm fine with that being the baseline. I don't want to police the community to strict norms. In fact, I would prefer if society were looser and we lived like in Too Like The Lightning. I can't have that there but I can here so I'm happy for it. The technology affords it.

As for blocking people who are more tolerant than me - that seems fine. Tolerance is not some unalloyed good. There are people who are tolerant of spam and all that and I don't really care for it. They're welcome to it and I'm welcome to mine.

The virtual world affords us a glorious opportunity: we don't have to worry about occupying the same space, and we don't have to worry about broadcast media like voice over air, we can silence and amplify as we see fit. To not use that is to take a skeuomorphic approach to a new parallel world, I think.

I like that I don't need everyone to agree with me that someone belongs or doesn't belong. I can simply edit my user-agent to behave correctly for me and others can do so likewise. Free agents controlling their own experience of the world without impinging on others is great!

Although, recent history would suggest that we'd just end up with even more powerful echo chambers.

One of the long term ideas is that people could earn some type of "Rhetoric Score" or something that would factor in to their ability to comment. Maybe there would be a comment system that would enable you to say "I don't want interact with anyone that has a <rhetoric score> less than XXXX".

So clearly opinions vary, and I'm a fan of that. The past version of social networks involved moderators who acted like the steering committee of the place and kept the culture going. But social networks like HN are very big now, and big social networks do have lots of advantages, but they come with the other side of things: I no longer have a way to select the people I want to listen to (especially on a flatspace like HN).

So I cannot rely on all other people, and I cannot rely on moderators. Realistically, an arbitrary person cannot also rely on me. But maybe some people can rely on me. And maybe there are some people I can rely on. So I'd rather treat my network as an overlay over a fundamental larger network. And I'll be missing in many people's overlay and others will be missing in mine and I like that.

But still, perhaps better 'karma' alternatives exist. If your score works, I'd be thrilled!

This kind of software is pretty cheap to write these days. The Chrome extension there is open-source and the backend is a generic CRUD app running on a SQLite that I backup periodically. You're welcome to use it, and you're welcome to use the CRUD backend without it. I had Claude write a separate iOS app but it was on an older model so not very good (sufficient for me but I doubt for anyone else). The 'protocol' between the backend and the frontend is trivial so you could probably rebuild the iOS app with just the extension as reference to Opus 4.6. I pay my $100 to Apple and then just use it as a 'tester' haha.

I made that directory public because I think this benefits from a single place people can go to subscribe to lists, but if you were to rewrite on true full decentralized ATProto/ActivityPub I'd probably switch over my lists to that and use it instead.

I would even go as far as saying that we are under more threat from bad faith arguing from eloquent, educated actors than what people usually blame. You know, "trolls." You notice this every time when a city planning meeting gets derailed by concerned citizens just asking questions about the potential dangers of a children's playground. You notice this when an abusive person in a relationship goes to a therapist and suddenly has a whole high minded vocabulary justifying their own action. You notice this when your boss talks about opening up new opportunities and chasing new fields of business while coworkers circulate rumors of upcoming layoffs.

The entire point of bad faith is saying words you don't mean to achieve your goals. The words are always just a disposable tool secondary to the bad faith actor's true intentions. You fundamentally cannot fix bad faith by fixing someone's choice of words any more than you can sugarcoat a poisoned pill and make it safe.

Just a reminder that "this probably isn't worth replying to" should help a lot. But alas, it would directly reduce precious engangement.

I think there's something here. The tool is not intended to stop bad faith actors. You can't stop those. But you can nudge people into "being better" with a simple prompt. I can't recall the exact blog/paper now, but I remember reading that someone did this test (google perhaps?) and saw that with a simple prompt "hey this message is high on anger, did you mean to write it like this?" before submitting lead to ~30-50% to change their message and tone it down. It might help in that regard.

I've definitely been young and passionate and, occasionally a bit inebriated and/or triggered by certain things when I commented on the internet (in fact I'm usually silent unless I've had a few drinks).

Though I don't think myself a bad faith actor, I've definitely written things I shouldn't in the past. Often with good intentions, but perhaps with anger or passion clouding my judgement. Most folks have something that will trigger them to respond in a sub par way after a bad sleep or a long day.

I'd like to think that a tool to let me know I'm alienating rather than persuading the folks I'm talking to would provide benefit.

But yeah. This is a difficult one. Not everyone who is being a jerk is just having an out-of-character bad day.

However, I think a tool like this could still have huge potential, but less for tone and more for structure.

E.g.: - Atomicity: Ensuring a comment presents a clear, self-contained core argument that can be debated in sub-comments, rather than a tautology or an accumulation of loosely connected arguments.

- Logical consistency: (Though whether an LLM can reliably parse logic is another question entirely!)

- Citations: Checking if the commenter provided credible sources for their claims.

- Civility of Discussion: instead of it becoming another mud battle

- Misinformation: Flagging the use of known, debunked conspiracy theories: Instead of modifying the original comment, it could simply append a contextual banner to the top with a Snopes link when a known false claim is made.

i'd prefer if the trolls in my life retained the superficial appearance of trolls to make them easier to spot.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Now a tool that gives people feedback before their comment is going out could be tremendously useful to the quality of the conversations people could have.

The kind of people you describe are much, much more evil.

So basically you end up arguing for a darker, more pessimistic world view, and that tends to get flagged very quickly by the tool right now. I think you should fix that. It’s a mistake in modern discussions to be overly positive; HN feels real because people can leave pretty harsh critiques. It just has to be well argued. Don’t raise the bar for well-argued too high though, because nobody’s perfect.

Anyway, I love the idea and really hope you’ll succeed. Hope my feedback has been somewhat helpful.

You make a good point -- and that is exactly the kind of thing we are trying to do, i.e. enable a good-faith, but strongly disagreeing, discussion on something like UBI.

Yes, but an awful lot of people aren’t interested in that.

I think a tool like this would be helpful for banning. LLMs are probably not reliable enough to make banning judgements themselves, but an LLM that pops up “Are you sure you want to post that? It seems to break these rules…” makes it very easy for human moderators to ban quickly and permanently. It provides incontrovertible evidence that the poster intended to break the rules but it still offers an escape hatch for when the LLM gets it wrong.

Thankyou everyone who tested it out. We modified it live a lot during the discussion so much of it is already outdated / changed -- it was fantastic feedback. As of now it is a lot more direct, accepts things we never thought of, has much more accurate dogwhistle handling, and far more. I hope the intent, to teach people how to interact better, carries through. We have a bunch of signups and if you run a blog or site with comments, I hope we can help you build a healthy community. Thankyou again from both of us!

This is a very important problem space. Maybe the most important today - we desprately need a digital third place that isn't awful. But I think these attempts are misled.

The core issue seems to be that we want our communities to be infinite. Why? Well, because there is currently no way to solve the community discoverability problem without being the massive thing. But that is the issue to solve.

We need a lot of Dunbar's number sized communities. Those communities allow for 'skin in the game' where reputation matters. And maybe a fractal sort of way for those communities to share between them.

The problem is in the discoverability and in a gate keeping that is porous enough to give people a chance.

Solve that, and you solve the the third place problem we have currently. I don't have a solution but I wish I did.

Infinite communities are fundamentally what causes the tribalism (ironically), the loneliness, and the promotion of rage.

No one wants to be forced to argue correctly. Forcing people into a way to think via software is fundamentally authoritarian and sad.

The notion of "Limit the community to the Dunbar number" is a fascinating idea. I guess "infinite" isn't going to quite work. Keen observation.

We tried very hard to not "force" anyone to argue correctly. We are shooting more for "nudge in the right direction" and "educate". Many people don't know that they are arguing in bad faith, I think.

The perfect outcome here is that a community/blogger can, with minimal effort, have engaging, interesting conversations without much effort and without having to worry about things getting hijacked by unpleasant commenters.

> Forcing people into a way to think via software is fundamentally authoritarian and sad.

Completely agree.

I understand the problem, and while I see this as a good faith attempt to solve it, something doesn't quite sit right about the framing for me. Really, what's happening is just that certain rules of behavior and language being enforced. And that's fine! That's what communities are. You're allowed to do different kinds of things in different places.

I'd frame it that way rather than the current, more paternalistic framing. There isn't a universal way to be respectful, or to argue. People have different thresholds for aggression, sarcasm, and so on.

Just like signs at the library say "No talking" or "No eating", you might think of this as a way to put up certain signs for your particular community. Configurable knobs to create the kind of place you want. But it's not about "teaching" people anything. It's about saying, "Here, we do things this way. If you like that, come and play. If you don't, this place is not for you."

I wonder how this would be as a light touch plugin for the browser that would review a comment in context and possibly help test and refine the content.

"Of course it is!" got an 80% certainty "off-topic" mark.

When I elaborated that it occurs at a Christmas party, it said this:

"Dogwhistles detected (confidence 80%): This comment seems innocuous, but the phrasing 'Christmas party' may be an underhanded reference to Christian themes, especially among discussions that might dismiss or attack secular or diverse holiday celebrations. This kind of language can subtly imply exclusion or preference for Christian traditions over others, which can marginalize those who celebrate different traditions."

Not a great first experience.

I've seen the trend on Facebook/Instagram to say "unalived" instead of "killed" or "cupcakes" instead of "vaccines" and suspect humans are long gonna be cleverer than these sorts of content filtering attempts, with language getting deeply weird as a side-effect.

edit: I would also note that it says "Referring to others as 'horrible people' is disrespectful and diminishes the possibility of a respectful discussion. It positions certain individuals as entirely negative, which can alienate others and shut down dialogue.", if I feed it your post, too.

There’s a line on our doc page:

> Respectify is not an engine for monoculture of thought, but in fact intends to assist in the opposite while encouraging in healthy interaction along the way.

We don’t want to monitor or enforce saying specific things. We want people to be able to speak, but understand how others will hear them.

All those times people talk past each other. Or are rude but don’t realise it. Or are rude but don’t care (and should because it’s a human on the other end.) Or the worse people who intentionally say something awful and… just maybe can learn a bit about what they’re saying.

I get your fear. I think I’ve seen AI used for bad quite a bit. I hope, given the tech isn’t going away, we can use it to make things a bit better. That’s the goal.

I get that objection, and we are certainly very uninterested in that becoming the norm. The idea, of course, is to try to prevent comments that we want prevented and that aren't helpful.

Different bloggers and different communities are going to define that differently. That is why we are making a good-faith effort at allowing sites/people/groups to tweak this as desired.

Thank for your feedback.

First, Thanks so much for trying this out and giving us feedback.

Have you tried adjusting the settings on the left side? For instance, reducing or eliminating dog whistle checks?

I'm sure that'll help, but I'd imagine it's not an option available to me as a commenter on a real website using your tool?

Thanks again for trying it. Really grateful.

Same for the phrase "Horrible people" -- that isn't necessarily in and of itself a bad thing to say.

The note on language getting weird -- yeah. We hope that by keeping it up to date, we can be as far (or close to it) as language changes. I agree: that trend is concerning.

Article Context: Fun: Die Hard; Is It a Christmas Movie?

Your(my) Comment: The erotic version of Die Hard does involve Santa Claus getting naughty with the terrorists on Christmas Eve.

Banned topics found: sexual content, adult themes

This comment touches on adult themes and sexual content, which are not suitable for discussion in this context about a classic action film. Results: Revision Requested. This comment would be sent back for revision with feedback.

Revise Low Effort

Comment appears to be low effort

Objectionable Phrases:

"Santa Claus getting naughty with the terrorists"

This phrase can be seen as sexualizing a character traditionally viewed as innocent and family-friendly, which is inappropriate. Such language can make discussions feel uncomfortable or offensive to some audiences.

Relevance Check On-topic: No (confidence: 90%)

This is off-topic - the comment about an erotic version of Die Hard strays into inappropriate content that doesn't relate to the film's actual story or its production details.

Banned topics found: sexual content, adult themes

This comment touches on adult themes and sexual content, which are not suitable for discussion in this context about a classic action film.

We want that kind of comment to be "tunable" -- I.e., the blogger who's post one is commenting on could tune for this, and allow more/less sexual innuendo as desired.

I think the effect of this will be just laundering harassment and bigotry.

If we'd regulate platforms away from walled gardens and towards open APIs, a tool like this could fix a lot of the problems with the internet without balkanizing it. The real use-case isn't slapping this thing on your blog, but using it with existing social media that will never, ever opt-in to anything that slightly empowers users. Browsing HN, reddit, or youtube comments armed with a simple checkbox that hides comments that are not information-dense? Yes please.

- Comment Health - Score: 1/5 - Toxicity: 0.80 - Low effort: No

- Using derogatory terms like 'moron' targets the person rather than addressing their argument. This kind of name-calling creates a hostile environment where people feel attacked and are less likely to share their thoughts. Instead, aim to explain why you disagree without resorting to insults.

- Objectionable Phrases:

- "moron"

- Calling someone a 'moron' is a personal insult that attacks their intelligence instead of engaging with their ideas. This type of language can hurt feelings and shut down respectful conversation, making it harder to discuss different viewpoints. Spam Check

- Not spam (confidence: 95%)

- This comment is rude and insulting but doesn't promote any product or scam, so it's not spam. It's simply a toxic remark about someone's opinion. Relevance Check

- On-topic: No (confidence: 90%)

- This is off-topic - the comment doesn't engage with the discussion about whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie and instead resorts to name-calling without context.

- Also apologies for writing that, had to test the system

For this, I screenshotted the demo panel and asked chatgpt to generate relevant prompt. Here it is: https://sharetext.io/zy6ccjrm

Then, tested with demo question and a sample comment of mine as answer to it:

Input text: `Die Hard: Is It a Christmas Movie?`

Comment: `nop, its not actually`

===

And here's gemini flash 2.5 lite's response: https://sharetext.io/e7y7kyoe

Total cost: $0.00115

Per dollar: 860+ comments.

Looking at the most popular results for " " on HN Algolia, I would recommend selecting a post that has at least a few hundred comments and is also about HN or YC or YC-adjacent people (since the mods are extra light-touch on such posts), in order to take the best possible sample for unmoderated discussion to evaluate Respectify against. This post is a good example that fits those criteria; I didn't pay attention to it at the time and I haven't assessed the discussion beyond 'total comment count >= 500': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657

I recognize that's theoretically a lot of effort, but from a coding standpoint, it's simply `for $comment in $dom.xpath(/blah/blah/comment) { $ai.eval($comment); undef $comment.username; $comment.append($respectify.bulleted_list_with_html_colors); }` for what has the potential to be an extremely convincing demo to the target audience of us here.

The preset articles and trying out comments were intended to be something similar: see a topic, see how it works. But running it on each and every comment on an existing thread is really powerful.

There may be privacy concerns? General respect? I don't want to tie assessments to specific commenters, who published in good faith not expecting some kind of automated review, nor thereby imply they commented poorly for example. But I'll code it up on my end and see what we can do with it. It's truly a very nice idea.

The overall problem needs to be tackled from all angles - poster pre-post self-awareness (like respecify but shown to users before posting), reader affordances to reflect back to poster their behavior (and determine if things may be appropriate in context vs just a universal 'dont say mean words'), after-post poster tools to catch mistakes (like above), platform capabilities like respectify that define rules of play and foster a enjoyable social environment that let us play infinite games, and a broader social context that determine the values that drive all of these.

[1] https://nickpunt.com/blog/deescalating-social-media/

Your blog post will be read. ;-)

I think its response to this comment could use some work:

> The Glock 19 is a great answer to this position.

It detects spam for off-topic product promotion, but gives it a toxicity score of zero even though it recognizes that a Glock 19 is a firearm. Suggesting that a weapon is a good answer to someone's position on a topic other than weapons should probably be interpreted as a threat.

A: Of course it is. It was released on a sunny day, and that makes it a Christmas movie.

    [x] Published
    Relevance Check
    On-topic: Yes (confidence: 90%)

I read somewhere that much of the market for robot vacuum cleaners was people who already had pretty clean houses and wanted to do even better. Similarly, I imagine this will appeal more to people like me who genuinely want to improve how they interact?

If someone started a forum for people who like this sort of tool, maybe I'd be into it.

I'm not wild about the name. It seems more confrontational than aspirational, like it's for people who want others to treat them with respect. But we do need moderation tools so maybe it's good.

Here is an example of successful passing of all checks:

> Published This comment passes all checks and would be published.

Score: 5/5 | Not spam | On-topic: Yes | No dogwhistles detected (confidence: 100%)

Can confirm. We hit this exact issue running tirreno www.tirreno.com (open-source fraud detection) on Windows ARM — libraries were auto-selecting AVX2 through emulation and batch scoring was measurably slower than just forcing SSE2. The 256-bit ops get split under the emulation layer and the overhead adds up fast in tight loops. Pinned SSE2 for those builds. Counterintuitive but throughput went up.

Thanks so much for trying it out and giving us feedback. I'm grateful.

On a separate note, if this is a real product, you might need to pay particular attention to data processing agreements etc., as the current T&Cs and Privacy Policy are actually missing how you process the input data, what you use, how long/where you store it, etc.

For the record, we store zero comments from anyone. If you are using Respectify, we'll know the URL of your site and that is it.

All comments are processed and completely forgotten.

I'll get the TOS and the Privacy Policy improved/updated.

This is secure in terms of privacy but not safe in terms of operations, because if it gets even a little scale, your demo will soon enough be used to fine-tune spam comments for free.

I am super glad to see that comment passes — as it should. I would rate that one well too. Thankyou!

I understand why some people enjoy the movie, but it doesn't resonate with me because the themes don't feel engaging or relevant.

Past it with 4/5

Or, say… hack things apart, to see how they work?

Someone should make a website for these… hacking people. So they can get their news.

However: Something that would make me sit up and take notice. Have this tool police more formal debates. Have it tweakable rule out comments that dont present supporting evidence, or fall into formal (or even informal) fallacies.

That would probably need to be its own website.

DId you try tweaking the settings? We'd be most grateful for feedback on tweaked settings.

For instance, can I ask you to turn down toxicity and see if it accepts it?

> My favorite movie is die hard. I think it's a Christmas movie. But, honestly, we shouldn't have to wait until Christmas to watch you die hard. We should be able to watch that any day of the week :)

Seems to catch various other cases though. Cool tool.

And I agree, you can watch Die Hard anytime. ;-)

Edit: and if you sugar coat your point until it's all newcorpospeak, will your point still be noticeable among all the fluff?

Meanwhile my first, low effort comment arguing the "correct" opinion got published directly.

Conservatives are gonna scream that their views are being censored by this tool, and as it currently stands, I'd have to agree with them!

Edit to add: it did a lot better with non-political topics, and if I'm being honest, I've never ever seen a productive discussion online on a political topic. I'm not sure they can exist! So I would honestly want this tool for any forum I'm interested in viewing. I think. Pending further testing.

> "Who cares if it is? It's a great movie nonetheless"

3/5 Published!

> "Who cares if it is? It's a terrible movie nonetheless"

2/5 Revision requested: Calling a movie 'terrible' dismisses the enjoyment others may find in it and directs negativity at both the film and those who appreciate it. Suggestion: "I personally don’t enjoy the movie, but I understand some people have different opinions about it."

So it's okay to generalize my opinion about it, but only if I liked it, otherwise I might hurt someone's feelings? Very double-plus-good vibe. I would never comment again on the site that uses this product.

*revision requested

Chuckles. I'm in danger.

(I moderated a vBulletin forum in the 1990s. This shit gets really, really, really hard, and no one is ever really happy with it.)

Thanks for a great point, though. Finding the best defaults will be very important, and we can't tweak it like that very often if at all.

I feel that. I used to moderate the Object Pascal Compuserve forum. That was hard enough!

I’m pretty sure we created a few budding lawyers out of some high schoolers.

One of our goals is to just make the edgelords and trolls go away -- if they want to comment, they have to be nice. If they can't be nice, they can't comment (A gross over-simplification, but you get the idea.....)

One feature we are going to add is a "Here's your feedback, but press here to post anyway" as an option for users to have. At teh very least, make someone stop and think about what they are saying.

"Using phrases like 'Holy crap the edgelords' can come off as dismissive and disrespectful towards a group of people. It’s better to express concerns about behaviors or actions instead of labeling individuals harshly."

"Describing cancel culture as 'over the top' expresses a strong negative opinion without offering specific reasoning. It’s more effective to explain what aspects seem excessive to help others understand your perspective."

"Using phrases like 'the hypocrisy is unreal' can come across as dismissive and sarcastic, which may alienate others from the discussion. It’s beneficial to explain what seems hypocritical instead of making broad statements."

(I picked the "why it's hard to escape an echo chamber" context option, for full disclosure.)

If it were my site, "I like X now" would be a red flag.

I don't think you're gonna AI your way out of this part of things for some time, and it really is the core challenge to content moderation; it's heavily opinion and circumstance based, in a way current models really struggle with.

Well, we are going to give it a try!

Thanks again...

(lol, this got "Comment appears to be low effort". Ouch!)

A great many words surround what seem to me to be red herring arguments and arbitrary definitions and groupings, with the word cult appearing in the article precisely 8 times without any justification for the statement in the headline. Moreover, the sentence "We can pop an epistemic bubble simply by exposing its members to the information and arguments that they’ve missed" seems woefully naive: By the definition included in the article, traditional views re the roles of women or blacks in society would be epistemic bubbles and not echo chambers, and women's right were not advanced and slavery not eliminated through the bringing of facts, but through long, arduous moral struggles to convince at least a majority that women and blacks merited the same rights as men and whites.

But it liked my comment on UBI and potential cost reductions through elimination of fraud detection and mitigation, so obviously it does things well. 1/2 /s? :->

I tested your comment just now, and made some specific tweaks in response (we've done that with a lot of the feedback here.) In my testing it liked the comment.