Blog Post 2 - 2/3/2017
Today I am writing my thoughts on the The Telegraph article titled Internet trolls replace racist slurs with codewords to avoid censorship. The article talks about how users on various social media replace common racial slurs and negative words with other “inoffensive” words to get around censorship. In my opinion this shows an underlying flaw in the system used to monitor these sites. The issue is that these sites are only searching for words and not the context of the word. This is an issue because it disallows the use of certain words that may have another inoffensive meaning while not actually solving the issue of abusive chats. The article makes it seem that they have buckled down on any word that might be viewed as offensive. This seems to include words such as gay, which is not only a term for a homoexual indivdual but also a word meaning happy. In the current system, a comment stating that “This post makes me feel gay.” would be flagged as it would appear to the automated system that it was being abusive instead of it being seen in its actual context of the above message making the commenter happy. Meanwhile on the opposite end of the spectrum we have a comment mentioning skittles and car salesmen that gets by because no offensive words were used in the comment but was clearly meant to be offensive or derogatory. This shows to me that an automated system cannot be used to regulate a comment section. In my opinion a comment section may simply need to be regulated by a moderator and comments would need to be approved on a comment by comment section or as some content creators on Youtube have decided, not allow comments at all. As much as I like to read other people’s views on content and articles that I have viewed or watched myself, It is my opinion that there is no way to monitor all those negative comments in a timely manner and that no automatic system can accurately prevent abuse. It is my stance that those who have removed their comment sections may have the right idea. As harsh as it sounds, most people do not comment on content anyway. The vocal minority is often the ones who comment and post abuse while the majority usually just watches the video or reads the article and leaves. It appears to me that all comment sections do is give people a way to spew abuse and hate while those who actually comment constructively are targeted by those who just want to troll or abuse others. At this time I feel there is not a practical way to monitor a large chat. A small comment section or chat room can be looked over by a moderator but that does not become practical way to monitor a chat that gets to large. As I stated prior, as much as I like reading comments, sometimes it may be better to simply turn it off, if there is nothing nice to say do not say anything at all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/03/internet-trolls-replace-racist-slurs-with-online-codewords-to-av/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/03/internet-trolls-replace-racist-slurs-with-online-codewords-to-av/
Blog Post 1 - 1/27/2017
Since I am new to blogging I will start with my thoughts on the article The Code I’m Still Ashamed of. The article tells the story of a young programmer who for one of his first job designed a website for an unnamed drug. On the website was a survey that was supposed to recommend a drug based on the information provided but instead always recommended the drug unless the survey taker claimed to already be taking the drug or they are allergic to the drug. Though the programer did was was required of him he later learned that someone who had been taken the drug had committed suicide. The question then posed by the article is whether or not the programmer did the right thing in coding the survey.
From the client's point of view the programer did everything they asked of him and that is important. As a coder it would not reflect well if you go against the client’s wishes. Doing so could reflect badly on future contracts and might even get you blacklisted from certain companies. If the programer had a problem with what was being asked of him he should have refused the contract from the outset.
From an Ethical standpoint, the coder should not have made a fake survey. He understood that the survey was designed to deceive those who would be visiting the website. Despite knowing this he did so without hesitation and did not even consider the consequences until he was alerted by a friend about someone on the drug committing suicide. Despite feeling guilty about it he did not address his colleagues about it and left the site as was.
Honestly I feel this was a learning experience for this programer, and an invaluable one at that. He learned that his actions held consequence and resolved to look at what he was coding ethically in the future. The catch to all this though is that the programer only learned this lesson at the cost of another person’s life. It was a horrible wake up call for him and one that should not have been needed. In truth I am glad I read his story and it served a valuable lesson but I do not believe that the story reflects well on the programer.
To conclude, the programer should not have even accepted the contract from the pharmaceutical company that hired him. The initial contract he accepted did not give enough information and he should have called his would be employers out on it before starting work on the site. Following that, when he got the details of survey, he should have refused the contract entirely. I mentioned above that he should not go against the client's wishes when building their sites but that does not mean you can not quit the job. Honestly it reflects poorly that he did not realise what he had done was wrong until someone committed suicide as an indirect result of his actions.
https://medium.freecodecamp.com/the-code-im-still-ashamed-of-e4c021dff55e#.z44bof9di
From the client's point of view the programer did everything they asked of him and that is important. As a coder it would not reflect well if you go against the client’s wishes. Doing so could reflect badly on future contracts and might even get you blacklisted from certain companies. If the programer had a problem with what was being asked of him he should have refused the contract from the outset.
From an Ethical standpoint, the coder should not have made a fake survey. He understood that the survey was designed to deceive those who would be visiting the website. Despite knowing this he did so without hesitation and did not even consider the consequences until he was alerted by a friend about someone on the drug committing suicide. Despite feeling guilty about it he did not address his colleagues about it and left the site as was.
Honestly I feel this was a learning experience for this programer, and an invaluable one at that. He learned that his actions held consequence and resolved to look at what he was coding ethically in the future. The catch to all this though is that the programer only learned this lesson at the cost of another person’s life. It was a horrible wake up call for him and one that should not have been needed. In truth I am glad I read his story and it served a valuable lesson but I do not believe that the story reflects well on the programer.
To conclude, the programer should not have even accepted the contract from the pharmaceutical company that hired him. The initial contract he accepted did not give enough information and he should have called his would be employers out on it before starting work on the site. Following that, when he got the details of survey, he should have refused the contract entirely. I mentioned above that he should not go against the client's wishes when building their sites but that does not mean you can not quit the job. Honestly it reflects poorly that he did not realise what he had done was wrong until someone committed suicide as an indirect result of his actions.
https://medium.freecodecamp.com/the-code-im-still-ashamed-of-e4c021dff55e#.z44bof9di