It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Firefox launches 'Dispute Finder'

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
First a couple of sources on this story:

From Physorg:


A "Dispute Finder" crafted by Intel researchers in Berkeley, California, for Firefox web browsers alerts Internet surfers to contentions that are contradicted by information elsewhere online.

"The reason this is important is that very often you'll read a website and not realize this is only one side of the story," Intel research scientist Robert Ennals said in an online video.
Dispute Finder automatically highlights text containing contested claims and then links to boxes summarizing points and counter-points. The data base is designed to grow and evolve with user input.

Votes regarding the reliability of information are used to filter dubious data.
Researchers reportedly envision a version of the software that will scan caption information in television programs for specious claims and a mobile device capable of "listening" for questionable comments in conversations. physorg


From New Scientist:


Showing that there are two sides to every story has never been easier, thanks to a new web tool that highlights disputed text on a web page and offers links to other sites with a different perspective.

"For subjects like science there's lots of misinformation around," says Rob Ennals at Intel Research in Berkeley. But it's not always obvious to the web user which statements they read online are accepted by all sides and which are contentious. "That's what our new Dispute Finder is for," Ennals says. "We'll let you know that there's another side to the story."

Dispute Finder, a Firefox browser add-on launched this week, was designed and built by Ennals and colleagues at Intel, working with computer scientists at the University of California in Berkeley. newscientist


From the official website:


The Dispute Finder Firefox Extension highlights disputed claims on web pages you browse and shows you evidence for alternative points of view. Watch the Videos to learn more.
Use this web interface to tell Dispute Finder what snippets to highlight and what evidence to present for alternative viewpoints. You can create a new disputed claim, mark new instances of a claim on the web, and add evidence that supports or opposes a claim. disputefinder


At the official site they also have a search engine box to try out their search results.

This software is in its infancy but I venture to guess that it could become a good tool for those who seek a holistic approach in their search for the truth.

So, good news for some ATSers not so good for others.


Anyhoot, I'll give it a try and see how she handles.




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
It is conceivable that "reliable" sources will be made with specific effort on the part of some to make the "truth" they want people to believe accepted as such...

I mean, this "tool" may really be an effort to, if not eliminate the freedom on the web, at least act as the mediator of "truth."

So I am unsure how well this will work. If the programmers are honest, and offer good data with bad, and sources are not subtly manipulated, it sounds awesome.

But I don't trust the PTB not to ensure their views.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Thanks. I've just added this to see how it works. Obviously, one should still check out everything one reads but this add-on looks interesting.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Sounds to me like highlighting what they will take out.

9/11 conspiracies will be highlighted, to show there are two sides, will the official story also be highlighted?


Doubtful.

Same with JFK, UFOs, Bilderburg, NWO, Obama, on and on.

Only the non-official side will be highlighted...

This is censoring with a highlighter, highlighting what you will come back to, with a black permant marker.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by breakingdradles]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Sounds like a great idea, as long as they don't decide which side is "truth" in issues where it's more complicated than that. As long as it just provides the other side of the argument no matter what it is, I am all for this, I spend a lot of time fact checking peoples posts online, or looking to see what the other side of an argument is, and if this saves me some time and remains objective, I'll be very happy.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Well, I don't think that something as abstract as "the truth" can be found through software, nor do I think that the software developers claim that that is their intention.
At least I hope not ...

From what I gather it is an effort to search for and highlight sources of competing theories where they might exist.

I'm sure we'll all put it to the test and see how it works.

As for "the truth," use your internal search engine.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Sounds to me like highlighting what they will take out.

9/11 conspiracies will be highlighted, to show there are two sides, will the official story also be highlighted?


We both know of organised "internet warrior" groups who will use this to flood the internet with the version of events they want believed.

Serving up someone's preferred version of events to all on a party platter is a great way to conceal the truth under a mountain of propaganda.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
As long as it were kept very scientific I would imagine it being ok. Who knows, perhaps claims about 9-11 will be lit up and it will make people think. On the other hand, when will it get to the point where "false" statements are just deleted altogether?



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Its important to see many sides to every story.

EVERYthing has two sides (or more). Its inevitable.

Its good for people to search out those other sides for themselves.

Sorry, but I think its somewhat questionable to have pop-ups that inject a "dispute" on anything that is not in accordance with consensus-reality as prescribed by such "authorities" as scientific american.

There's already enough damage done by having established a consensus reality of "if its not on google, it does not exist" and "if wikipedia does not say so, its not true" and other such nonsense.

Whats wrong with me simply googling for the dispute myself if Im interested?

[edit on 20-6-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
It definitely aint scientific:


You can create a new disputed claim, mark new instances of a claim on the web, and add evidence that supports or opposes a claim.


Source in the OP

Why is Intel involved and why is this made out to be so ground-breaking? It's basically a wiki. Incorporating it into the pages themselves is kinda cool, but hardly revolutionary, and the database it is working from is just another wiki.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I'll wait till I see a screen shot of it in use.
It take me so long, like years, to accumulate a wealth of links
to a story and put up the topic and no one can add to it.

Well how can you put up a web source for anything now
given out.

How many reviews did the FBI give the first biography on Tesla.
Perhaps a FOIA request might find that data when pigs fly.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
This has a bad smell to me. I'm all for presenting both sides, but this sounds like it will be balanced in favor of popular opinion (probably by some sort of voting). Which is basically argumentum ad populum, a common fallacy. If it were just myself using it, I wouldn't mind. But I know this sort of manipulation can be used to program (or reprogram) a large percentage of the population. It'll be like putting a big warning sign on anything that isn't agreed upon by the masses. That can't be a good thing.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
It is conceivable that "reliable" sources will be made with specific effort on the part of some to make the "truth" they want people to believe accepted as such...

I mean, this "tool" may really be an effort to, if not eliminate the freedom on the web, at least act as the mediator of "truth."

So I am unsure how well this will work. If the programmers are honest, and offer good data with bad, and sources are not subtly manipulated, it sounds awesome.

But I don't trust the PTB not to ensure their views.


Exactly my thoughts.

If the links are prioritized based on user generated input, then all we will have is another source to reaffirm the current consensus reality.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by theyreadmymind
 


Like hundreds of IPs from government or companies depending
on a government payday will swamp a popular front to side together.

As for non government conspiracy problems like software or cars
the finds could only help. Why would you want to hear my browser
works OK when yours does not.

I had a problem loading drivers and downloaded at sites where you
must see 5 ads before download. After a week or two I went to
Intel and got the driver. I neglected to add to any messages but
some did help but forgot which ones.


ED: Yahoo Answers might be like this finder.
I can't use Yahoo for what has been secret for years and we
can only speculate about. Other than secret perhaps untouched
by science and shows up in error slanting to their theories.

[edit on 6/20/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I really don't know what to think about this - whether it's good or not. I guess we'll all see sooner or later, huh?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Thanks. I've just added this to see how it works. Obviously, one should still check out everything one reads but this add-on looks interesting.


Ok, I've had this thing running for two days now. I can't stand it! The popups are horrible. I'm taking it off now... see ya...



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Can you tell us a little bit about how it works?

Other than the pop ups does it deliver what it promises?

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


what they don't mention is that it can be used to discredit real information that is not pleasing to whatever agenda is on their plates at the time.

it would also help them clean up the web of information they don't want people reading

a step closer to a complete big brother world




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Thanks. I've just added this to see how it works. Obviously, one should still check out everything one reads but this add-on looks interesting.


Ok, I've had this thing running for two days now. I can't stand it! The popups are horrible. I'm taking it off now... see ya...
`


Can we say agent less mind control.
Up pop mis information, the party line.
We no longer have to see posts that conspiracies don't happen.
Will we find the biggest conspiracy page on the net when Geo Cities
goes down. I'm sure searches don't find it.
Imagine, taking down a whole web structure to get rid of one page.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Here is an absurd example of Dispute Finder at work. Disputer Finder is obviously in its infancy so take that into consideration.

The page www.bpnews.net... is entitled "Timeline: 'Gay Marriage' decisions'" and begins with this paragraph:


"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Six state supreme courts within the past five years have ruled on the issue of "gay marriage." Following is a timeline of those decisions:"

The text is basically a historical timeline of gay marriage issues in the supreme courts.

You will find if you visit this page with the "Dispute Finder" plugin that a bar appears at the top of your browser that says: "This page contains disputed claims (highlighted in pink)." The text of this particular whole page is highlighted in pink implying that all the historical text is disputed.

Dispute finder doesn't inform you as to how to get the opposing evidence, but if you click on the pink text you can get a popup. In this case, the popup says:

"Disputed Claim:
Gay marriages should be legalized
Opposing Evidence
Stop Gay Marriage! - Petition Spot
Marriage was intended for procreation and to populate the earth. Homosexual couples cannot procreate or populate. So it is written "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination". Not only in biblical terms, but this is also a reality: If it was meant for men to be with men and women to be with women, this earth would not and could not populate.
www.petitionspot.com... found by Snort - report spam"


Just an example for those of you who were wondering how this thing worked.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Thu Jun 25 2009 by Jbird]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join