Instagram Bans Babylon Bee Founder's Pro-Life Cartoon as 'Hate Speech'

[temporal1]

The cartoon represents a discussion, an ARGUMENT, really.
If the computer algorithm cannot evaluate the text in terms of the interchange and contrasting statements involved here, then it is primitive at best.

The CONTEXT of the whole 'conversation' is clearly against slavery, and openly states that there is no difference in the humanity of the African slaves and their white masters.

Can the computer model not even look at what statement is made last?
(In general prose, that would be considered the conclusion.)

If we ran the Scripture through this same computer program, then would Paul be saying that we SHOULD multiply sin in order to make room for more grace, and thereby glorify God more?
(That's just the first example that comes to mind.)

It makes me wonder if this algorithm can also not understand rhetorical questions.
That is basic for understanding English, for which I would suppose the computer model was originally created.

It points out how tiny and inadequate human science is compared to God.
As boot points out, look at the grand human effort put into formulating these algorithms, and how limited and deficient they are. i appreciate the human work, i have worked in university computing departments from the early mainframe years, before PC’s were only a far-out dream, presently, my family works with advanced computers in different fields on the west coast - i get the effort!

But. Playing God is tough work.

IF Adam Ford’s sole intent was to expose weakness in these algorithms, good for him.
more than 1 great message is fine.
It’s necessary, or, these tech entities would have the world kneeling to them. A “tail wagging the dog” scenario. They are so big and so monied, it’s easy to become fooled.

“Primitive,” i believe, is a great word for it. It feels harsh now. Wait 7 years.
Today’s tech will quickly be tomorrow’s reference to mainframe computers. Primitive, right?
In those days, not long ago, mainframes were awe-inspiring. Today, they are comical. Primitive!

What has happened to human memory?
It seems, as technology advances, the collective human brain function seems to diminish. Uncomfortable thoughts. Because humans have big egos! We always want to believe we are advancing! Yes, to the point we will lie to ourselves about it.

I would put good money on this censorship decision being made by a human (albeit probably one not paying very much attention), not an algorithm.

Chances are that many, many people clicked the "Report" button, probably as part of a concerted left-wing harassment campaign against Adam Ford.

I’ve been following a Reuter’s FB page for a few months, mostly to read viewer comments.
wow. the great number are leftist sycophants who do not seem to bother reading reports they vigorously comment on, they are often rude+crude, they aggressively and self-righteously “report” and troll anyone perceived to have an opposing view -

so, yes, i expect your guess about Adam Ford being a target of such, is accurate.

considering Reuter’s FORMER reputation of being a moderate news source, one would expect they would discourage this sort of following. no sign of it! if i were them, i’d shut the page down to be rid of them, then consider whether starting fresh, in attempt to attract a more balanced following.

when i read that page, i expect to see them baiting their viewers. that’s pretty much what it is now.

[temporal1]

I kept thinking about this as I was working tonight, and I really cannot see any way past this problem. It MIGHT be censorship based on the viewpoints of either the program hosts, or on having had so many complaints from anti-pro-life members of the 'forum' (or what ever it should be called). But it MIGHT be a simple result of the inability of the program to correctly understand & identify the gist of the comment or post in question. Those who are submitting complaints may be doing so because they are simply opposed to anything that questions abortion rights, or they may have simply not read it carefully enough to understand it, and were just too quick to respond with the complaint. (Therein lies another question we do not know the answer to: Was it taken down as a result of the routine scanning process by their program, or was it done only after many user complaints?)

So then the process falls to the company hosting the site to make the right judgement. On the one hand, one could say that if they cannot do it correctly, then they should stop providing the service. OR they could restrict ALL political & religious speech. This is the approach taken by several old car forums to which I belong. If you say anything pertaining to either of these topics, the post will be removed. But they probably do not want to do that, because many of their users come there for the purpose of aggressively engaging other posters. They want to appeal to the majority, so as society become more & more nasty, that's where these 'services' will follow.

In this case, there are statements made by the two persons in the cartoon, expressing opposite views about slavery. Perhaps they could do better by including a 'contradiction quotient' in their program, whereby it would automatically trigger an alert for a person to evaluate it. Posting could be delayed until this process was carried out. (This takes place for ALL posts made on one old car discussion board whee I occasionally make comments. NO responses are uploaded until they have been evaluated.)

more good points.
these types of efforts work well for closed groups focused on limited content.
i can’t quite grasp how this could work for large platforms. and, i’m not sure what could work on such big scales. that’s what’s being wrestled with right now. no slam-dunk answers. “primitive” is a good word for it.