h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
EuphBuster
A filter that highlightes dodgy sayings... such as collateral damage, and suggest what it really means | |
Basically, reminds people what politician are trying to avoid.
This is a firefox/other browser plug in that acts like the Microsoft word spell checker.
However instead of reading a page and underlining words with bad spelling, it looks at a page and underlines euphemisms.
Using a list... when
the user hovers over ("or press a button") the underlined words, it shows a number of alternative wording.
E.g.
neutralization ---> do you mean Murder?
Collateral damage ---> do you mean civilians killed?
In addition, it allows users to underline a sentence within a website, and upload to a website for ranking BS. Within the website, the audience can write and vote on the "proper meaning" of the BS sentence. Later on, other visitors to the same page, will have the same underline on the particular sentence.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: This correction is all happening on the client side, so no hacking of the actual server is occurring . Kinda like a grease monkey script.
[link]
|
| |
Would rather see a mouse over vote. <underscore> Collateral Damage </underscore> -> mouse over -> Vote BS or valid -> show results. Of course, the uneducated majority still carry the vote, as depicted by advertisment target market of the publication. |
|
| |
Of course you could adapt the text of the article to reflect the majority vote. Each underscored phrase could reflect popular opinion at the time. |
|
| |
I like it! Just because I can build a bot to vote it my way. And it might, the above notwithstanding, re-introduce the asset of objectivity back to journalism. |
|
| |
Reminds me of a friend who would set the AutoCorrect on Word to replace 'Bill Gates' with 'Satan'. |
|
| |
Problem is that the big media websites would soon move on to a technology which the plugin couldn't read. |
|
| |
Also note that complicated explanations are often needed. For example many bad ideas nonetheless result in higher GDP. |
|
| |
//Collateral damage ---> do you mean civilians killed?// |
|
| |
Hey now, sometimes we just maim or wound them. |
|
| |
Hey, as the score stands, if I vote [-] I can neutralize the half bun! |
|
| |
As long as the "plain form" meaning is dumbed-down in the direction of your political leanings, it's great. If it goes the other direction, I think you'd not like it so well. |
|
| |
If "dumbed down" means debunked or decoded for the proletariat and not the ruling body or "government", the ones lying 99% of the time, then I think the majority would like it. Bun against bull. |
|
| |
"proletariat" --> "conspiracy theorists" . . . ;) |
|
| |
Sorry, but the internet is already nothing more than a hive of opinions; and every opinion splits the world between "agree" / "disagree" / "don't care". |
|
| |
If you wish to have a tool that allows you to write graffiti over the top of other people's opinions and make them sound as stupid as you would like them to sound, go for it. Somehow, though, you'll have to keep it from defacing the opinions that you do like, and that hovers over toward the "magic" end. I certainly can't [mfd] for that, though, because you didn't suggest it. I do think, though, that you'd hate your invention after a few trips to websites you like and agree with. |
|
| |
Upper Echelon---> CorporoFascist Smokescreen Producers...>:{)> |
|
| |
If it lowered the number of sheeple in the U.S. alone, it would be a successful invention in my opinion. |
|
| |
If you leased the service out as a real-time subtitler to a TV network, how much larger would it's share of viewing audience be, compared to the vanilla shill broadcasters. |
|
| |
This is only a tool, and like anything else it can be abused. |
|
| |
However it doesn't defaces the actual website, its more of a grease monkey like script. Therefor any defacement that may occur is happening on the client side, and the client always have full control over what they see. |
|
| |
For example, if i don't like the correction, i could just click on the 'vote down' button. Therefor there is no ego lost within this setup, except people wanting to impose their own set of views without opposition. |
|
| |
That would mean the only translation would be on behalf of people who already knew the jargon and disapproved. I think people with strongly held political opinions ought to at least read what their opponents are really saying. |
|
| |
newspeak doubleplusungood. |
|
| |
Well this would still be the solution to the problem you said about. This program would help in forcing people to read jargons properly, even ones they never heard of. |
|
| |
Perhaps due to the use of a outside database as well as client side, people without the plug-in may also discover BS sayings though googling. |
|
| |
This would encourage everybody to read carefully at the message, especially if it is highlighted in plain sight... even if its from a democrat or conservatives. |
|
| |
Sometimes things just has to be pointed out before our brain can kick in to say Yes or No. |
|
| |
As long as it can be done in a reasonably nonpartisan way. Eg |
|
| |
'Jobs created' -> Are they productive jobs, given the people employed? Is there enough unemployment to justify job creation efforts? |
|
| |
Most political writers, if they support the party in power, will get trapped by the above. |
|
| |
'Supply Side Economics' -> In economics, the idea that very high taxes at the top rate will actually hurt revenue by encouraging tax dodges and discouraging work. In politics, the idea that putting the tax burden on the poor instead of the rich will allow the super rich to produce endless wealth for everyone. Prices will then plummet to what the poor can afford, rather than production being shifted to what the rich can afford. |
|
| |
You have my low tax bun anyway because it would be good if someone pulled it off. |
|
| |
The one I'd like would be to replace all notions of "government funding" with "taxpayer funding". |
|
| |
hmm, a start would be having every word that's above a certain common level be linked to a dictionary... ditto phrases if there's a "buzzword" dictionary around somewhere. |
|
| |
FlyingToaster, Jun 03 2008 |
|
| |
not a bad idea...
Why not add a wiki link, while we are at it :3 |
|
| |
Anybody up to making a Firefox extension for this idea? |
|
| |