Was the OP supposed to make any sense whatsoever? Or did a cat just dance on someone's keyboard?

а&b) agreed, but I was showing the exact use of the funds for one of mozilla projects.

See here (linked in OP):
"Mozilla’s innovations director, Katharina Borchert, told AFP that the organization was working on tools for Firefox and better online education with media groups, universities, and tech activists."

About "automated censoring AI":
"automated censoring AI" is software that is designed to create search bubble or otherwise influence the as-is dataflow.

Automated, because it will function autonomously.
Censoring, because it will modify access to data and change search results.
AI, because its fairly complicated algorithm.

I have strong concerns that this software will execute censorship over search results, which may end up in catastrophic results such as public majority agreeing to engage in full scale war for fake reasons.

My understanding of "misinformation" is a misinterpretation of facts in order to support specific agenda. It can be lie or half-lie, likewise.

If he starts quoting Alex Jones I'm outta here! :P

From same source as above:
"The “Mozilla Information Trust Initiative” comes just as an automated real-time fact-checking engine dubbed the “bullshit detector” was demonstrated in London.

The group that created the fact-checking engine, Full Fact foundation, is backed by Omidyar and our favorite billionaire tycoon Soros.

The organization stated its software is “capable” of spotting lies in real-time and was used to fact-check a live debate at the House of Commons. How that objective was achieved isn’t clear since it’s likely automated A.I., but algorithms are not 100% accurate."


I cant seem to post twitter links here. I found two interesting quotes so far:

"Some clarifications: 1. Mozilla believes in freedom, not censorship" to this issue by Phillip Smith, will update OP.

"A hard problem to tackle: The Pentagon's blue-sky division asks for help in figuring out what research to believe" by Rosana Ardila, one of people behind

Thanks for the heads-up.

if I am reading the article right that's a totally different group though, doing their own project. It has nothing to do with Mozilla. It certainly doesn't warrant the headline that this "bullshit detector" is going to end up in Firefox.

That being that said, the idea of machine-controlled news censoring certainly sounds very orewellian.
brave new world ...

influencing the public by controlling search results is already happening. Just not by Mozilla but by google.

article @Guardian
article @Wired
according to their blog

Thanks, will be checking it!

Look who I found while browsing Phillips Smith's twitter from 10 Aug headlined "Mozilla fights misinformation with a new program".

" Katharina Borchert
lyssaslounge

Chief Innovation Officer at Mozilla. Ex-CEO Spiegel Online. No ghostwriters harmed in the making of these tweets. Contains traces of irony and personal opinion."

Look up her previous workplace. Now spiegel is under clear definition of "fake news".

Edit: Article@Guardian above
Soros link confirmed. AI complexity confirmed (fuzzy logic decision via databank, self learning). Not confirmed that it will be part of Firefox, its writted instead that its a tool for journalists, but possibly for general public later. Reading on, contribute - anyone?

Edit 2:
"In another version of the software, the fact-checks pop up on the TV screen as politicians are speaking, giving viewers instant verdicts.... developers want to expand the program so that it carries out its own fact-checks by using databases of statistics and verified information. Work is also under way to give Twitter and Facebook users the chance to fact-check their social media feeds, where the large majority of the worst fake news has been distributed."

"Stephen King, the Omidyar Network’s global lead on governance and citizen engagement: these tools will expand the reach and impact of fact-checkers around the world, ensuring citizens are properly informed and those in positions of power are held accountable."

The "verified information" is stored on external site I assume, with no access. I see a possibility of self-learning and user-profiling distributed machine, with client part integrated into Firefox directly or by tool. Unlikely as a standalone tool since it will want mass-learning, both possible I assume.


Edit 3: article@Wired
"The other, Trends, tracks repetitions of inaccurate claims to see where misleading information is coming from."
So, yes, this is impossible with distributed tracking. So firefox user tracking confirmed?

"Gulati, a former city analyst who co-founded UK artificial intelligence startup"
AI confirmed.

".. was awarded €50,000 by the Google Digital News Initiative to develop a system to detect and correct misleading information online"
possible link with Google profiling and tracking.

" If a statement deviates in any way from the strict truth, Gulati claims his system will be able to spot it."
Whats "strict truth"?... I mean, humans are all floating points.

"Gulati is building his startup the Silicon Valley way, with bold talk of 'AI' and 'democratisation' ”
So I guess AI complexity is really confirmed here.

"correct claims related to economic statistics. When Factmata’s text-reading software detects a statement .... shows static example, base on life exchange on Twitter. Someone called Chris Conyers is debating, in the futile way of social media, a man using a Republican elephant as his avi."
This software has access to browser canvas and it will serve 3rd party. Server part closed source, database closed source I assume. A lot of anti-trump things there. Also a lot of anti-right and anti-trump tweets in Katharina Borchert profile. I am anti-right myself, but I am not pro-left or pro-fake either.

"To function effectively, an automated political factchecker will need to be open: that way it can be tested against generally accepted standards, and be held accountable when it goes wrong. But although Gulati says the code for Factmata will be open source, he doesn’t mean openness in the political sense."
So database and server part - closed, client - possibly open, but possibly partially.

"Factmata is going to work, then it can’t be funded by grants"
So its currently fully funded by Soros grants.

So this clearly looks like a complex modular distributed tracking software developed to be used by biased political force, which is currently controlling Mozilla... well done.. :/

Thanks Lin!

Oh and also this:

Is it anti-Islamic to call out extremist Muslims for engaging in subversive activities? No, it isn't, and it sure as shit isn't antisemitic to call out Soros for his subversive activities around the globe.
.
So who's going to be checking the "fact-checkers"? o.O

And now, a picture that makes no sense:

Yes, well if database would be public, so that its priorities are clearly seen, and if software would not have any tracking - then it would be possible in this case. The "fact checkers" as they are referred in the article are persons, who supposely try to debunk claims - however I don't know any such person (except maybe the Ukrainian media expert Anatoli Sharij), so they are probably kickstarters of AI learning database and debuggers.

But there are huge sums invested into it by someone who's indirectly responsible for murdering one good person I knew by starting a war in his homeland and destabilizing+hate spreading in several countries in my vicinity using coordinated fake press, so I doubt that it will public. But this does not belong here, lets strictly stay on this software piece.

Makes total sense to me, now I know why UPS costs so much :) The guy's happy spouse is filming I assume :)

Edit: grammoar.

To quote, for example, the FAQ on snopes.com, one of the original fact-checkers. The same will apply to any fact-checkers worth taking seriously.

What tiny is trying to say is, ignorance is bliss -- and God forbid someone should fuck with his bliss!
.
.
BTW, can any of the liberal humanitarians here explain why it is that "defending democracy" only takes place in foreign nations?