Google’s new tool, Perspective, works by comparing comments left on news websites to comments left on Wikipedia and the New York Times that were deemed “toxic” by a team of human reviewers.
The only criteria given for what constitutes a “toxic” comment is that it causes someone to leave a conversation. Obviously, this could also include someone who lost a debate or who is merely offended or triggered by another comment.
With trust in mainstream media plummeting, the real goal behind the censorship and in some cases entire removal of comment sections is to manipulate public opinion.
As the Daily Tech revealed, Popular Science admitted that the decision to pull its comment section was in order to preach a “scientific doctrine” on global warming without being challenged.
Popular Science acknowledged that their decision was based on a study by Dominique Brossard, a Life Sciences Communication professor at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, that appeared in the February 2013 edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications.
The study found that, “People reacted neutrally when comments were disabled, but even when comments were generally positive their reactions did not noticeably improve. However, when the reader feedback took on a “less civil” tone with people questioning the merits of nanotechnology, user perception of the publication itself (not just the topic discussed) took a decidedly negative turn.”
In other words, the credibility of the article in question is largely dependent on the tone of the comments left in response. The more negative, uncivil and “toxic” the tone, the less likely the reader is to trust the article and the publication.
Once these “toxic” comments are removed, the reader is more likely to trust CNN, the New York Times, or whoever publishes the article.
Any technology developed by Silicon Valley to combat so-called “hate speech” is inevitably going to have a liberal bias baked in.