Users flagged it, which is common on divisive topics. We sometimes turn flags off, even when a topic is divisive, but I think it's best if the underlying article is not a direct advocacy piece (or an organizational announcement*).
Here are some other places where I've posted about this in the context of this topic. If you or anyone take a look at those explanations and still have a question that isn't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
(* we tend not to favor posts that announce organizations, because while the organization may be important and its work may be interesting, the announcement posts themselves tend not to be intellectually interesting per se, so they end up fueling generic rather than specific discussion.)
I think you're doing a good job in turning off flags for some devisive posts. I was just surprised at how easy it is to kill the post from just a couple (?) flags especially after others have vouched for it. There was this weird behaviour going on where the post got killed then revived because some user vouched for it and then another flagged it.
It's also worthy of note that this system is ripe for abuse, because the visibility of the post is asymmetric. It gets killed as soon as it gets flagged, so no new users see it and hence hard for someone to vouch. There's also the obvious problem of ganging on a post to flag/vouch for it, which again seems like it can be easily abused by small groups.
T4P is one of the most exciting things I've seen in tech. I was an early adopter of both the GitHub banner for my biggest 9k+ star GitHub project, profile[1], and of the photo border tool[2].
I am very skeptical that something like "An LLM-based chatbot that answers history and law questions about palestine in a hasbara free way" is going to materially help anyone.
Sure it can, as can any other kind of well-designed Q+A bot, even about far less controversial topics.
The material benefit as such resides in the fact that (1) they can potentially save users a great deal of time (a very large portion of search engine queries are straight-up questions, which the articles in the result set sometimes answer, but usually only partially, and it still requires a good chunk of time to plough through them just to get that answer) and (2) high-potency propaganda of any kind (not specific to the hasbara project, though it seems to provide a shining example of such) promotes anxiety, paranoia, and increased susceptibility to psychosis. In fact to some extent that is its very purpose.
So anything that helps abate the pernicious blight of (2) is potentially quite helpful, both materially and spiritually.
Also, people are going to be using AI chatbots for this kind of research anyway. Rather than hoping the larger players will do the right thing here (or at least avoid doing the wrong thing), it seems quite prudent for independent organizations to pick up the task on their own, and start creating their own bots for these purposes.
I think it could be an accessable way to learn more about the topic. But just plainly reading about the topic through the vast written literature would be a better way to do so.
They accurately outline the fact that claim of the NYT is not properly supported by facts. There was almost certainly sexual violence on Oct 7. It hasn't been established in an evidence based way that there was organized premeditated weaponization of sexual violence as a tool of war as is claimed in the article.
If you're going to cite the ICC arrest warrant for Hamas then you have to acknowledge the one they've issued to Netanyahu for using starvation as a weapon.
Please explain how any of the projects they're proposing aids "foreign terror organizations". If you're going to make claims, bring supporting evidence with you. This isn't even a call for humanitarian aid, which you've somehow found it acceptable to reject. What is wrong with you?
Can someone please explain why this was flagged? Seems like a perfectly relevant post.
Edit: To anyone that sees this comment, please vouch for the post as someone has flagged it again.
Users flagged it, which is common on divisive topics. We sometimes turn flags off, even when a topic is divisive, but I think it's best if the underlying article is not a direct advocacy piece (or an organizational announcement*).
Here are some other places where I've posted about this in the context of this topic. If you or anyone take a look at those explanations and still have a question that isn't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39920732 (April 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 (Dec 2023)
(* we tend not to favor posts that announce organizations, because while the organization may be important and its work may be interesting, the announcement posts themselves tend not to be intellectually interesting per se, so they end up fueling generic rather than specific discussion.)
I think you're doing a good job in turning off flags for some devisive posts. I was just surprised at how easy it is to kill the post from just a couple (?) flags especially after others have vouched for it. There was this weird behaviour going on where the post got killed then revived because some user vouched for it and then another flagged it.
It's also worthy of note that this system is ripe for abuse, because the visibility of the post is asymmetric. It gets killed as soon as it gets flagged, so no new users see it and hence hard for someone to vouch. There's also the obvious problem of ganging on a post to flag/vouch for it, which again seems like it can be easily abused by small groups.
[flagged]
T4P is one of the most exciting things I've seen in tech. I was an early adopter of both the GitHub banner for my biggest 9k+ star GitHub project, profile[1], and of the photo border tool[2].
Congratulations on the launch!
[1]: https://github.com/LGUG2Z
[2]: https://ppm.techforpalestine.org/
I am very skeptical that something like "An LLM-based chatbot that answers history and law questions about palestine in a hasbara free way" is going to materially help anyone.
Sure it can, as can any other kind of well-designed Q+A bot, even about far less controversial topics.
The material benefit as such resides in the fact that (1) they can potentially save users a great deal of time (a very large portion of search engine queries are straight-up questions, which the articles in the result set sometimes answer, but usually only partially, and it still requires a good chunk of time to plough through them just to get that answer) and (2) high-potency propaganda of any kind (not specific to the hasbara project, though it seems to provide a shining example of such) promotes anxiety, paranoia, and increased susceptibility to psychosis. In fact to some extent that is its very purpose.
So anything that helps abate the pernicious blight of (2) is potentially quite helpful, both materially and spiritually.
Also, people are going to be using AI chatbots for this kind of research anyway. Rather than hoping the larger players will do the right thing here (or at least avoid doing the wrong thing), it seems quite prudent for independent organizations to pick up the task on their own, and start creating their own bots for these purposes.
I think it could be an accessable way to learn more about the topic. But just plainly reading about the topic through the vast written literature would be a better way to do so.
Nit, this line is patronizing: "help people learn... to develop critical reading skills"
They say there were no rapes on Oct 7 and other things are also made up: https://updates.techforpalestine.org/oct7factcheck-sunday-ed...
They accurately outline the fact that claim of the NYT is not properly supported by facts. There was almost certainly sexual violence on Oct 7. It hasn't been established in an evidence based way that there was organized premeditated weaponization of sexual violence as a tool of war as is claimed in the article.
Yes it has. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for the heads of Hamas specifically for using sexual violence as a weapon.
If you're going to cite the ICC arrest warrant for Hamas then you have to acknowledge the one they've issued to Netanyahu for using starvation as a weapon.
Of course. They’re all criminals and they should all be prosecuted.
Great work everyone!
exciting to see!
There are US laws against money laundering that aids and abbets foreign terror organizations
Please explain how any of the projects they're proposing aids "foreign terror organizations". If you're going to make claims, bring supporting evidence with you. This isn't even a call for humanitarian aid, which you've somehow found it acceptable to reject. What is wrong with you?