Originally posted by Surtur
What about the Trump gun picture?
It wasn't his picture. And not even Snopes is able to verify that the Twitter account and the Facebook accounts involved are actually the perpetrator's.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/el-paso-shooting-twitter/
Obviously, it seems out of place. The Facebook account had only his twin sister and an unknown/unconnected couple. Just 3 friends.
This is Snopes, mind you. Snopes has been caught, several times, clearly favoring Democrats and Leftists in their fact checking. If not even Snopes is comfortable stating that the Twitter account and Facebook account are really his, jury should remain out.
Okay how about for now we assume the manifesto is legit. So, are people who are blaming Trump's rhetoric going to also place blame on this apocalyptic climate rhetoric we hear from some democrats?
It's time to choose if they are going to be consistent on this. This is where we separate those with Trump Derangement Syndrome and those without.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay how about for now we assume the manifesto is legit. So, are people who are blaming Trump's rhetoric going to also place blame on this apocalyptic climate rhetoric we hear from some democrats?It's time to choose if they are going to be consistent on this. This is where we separate those with Trump Derangement Syndrome and those without.
Are climate "alarmists" blaming Mexicans?
Originally posted by cdtm
I don't see why not.
It's what he wants. It's what anyone who writes a manifesto wants.
This isn't New Zealand, I definitely don't want people prohibited from posting it. I'm just wondering..should they?
Has it helped the situation? Or just stoked unnecessary fears about white supremacists?
Originally posted by cdtm
Was the Taliban manifesto (Or whatever you call the write up explaining Bin Laden's motives) legit?
Good question.
Just like we did with the Shakespeare plays, we should revisit some of the historical documents with those AI tools to see if our assumptions were correct back in the day.
Right now, the tools have to be "configured." You have to train it with a set of confirmed authors and then compare a new work, once the bot is trained enough to know, that is being questioned.
So you feed it 400 pages form 5 different writings from a 100% confirmed author. Then feed it a 5th writing that is under question. Then the tool will break down how likely it is to be from the same author.
Some of them are getting smart enough to use "known databases" where you don't have to train it first but those are largely secret and proprietary tools (think Watson).