Feature requests

[Greg Bernhardt]

We're still very early in setting the community up. If you have a request, please detail it here. Thanks!

 

[morrobay]

Hello , How to install app for phone screen ?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Hello , How to install app for phone screen ?

I can work on setting up a PWA for the site which will allow you to add an icon to your phone screen. Give me a week. Thanks!

 

[phinds]

I'd like to see "like" icons for "skeptical" and "agree"

I assume you're working on guidelines such as "no 'factual' statements unless you can back them up with a citation from a reputable news source".

That of course brings in the question of how do we define what is a reputable news source. Certainly social media is not but how about right wing "news" sources?.

 

[fresh_42]

A subforum for "random thoughts" would be nice.

Example:
Now that Trump demands rare-earth elements from Ukraine in exchange for American weapons, I asked myself whether the US pays for its military facilities on German soil like for its largest military hospital outside mainland USA.

I have no idea where to put this.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

hmmmm, INTL politics? How to build a bridge between domestic US and intl when some topics are both. We may need to restructure the forums at some point.

 

[fresh_42]

May I add a comment about the Guidelines here?

a) I didn't quite understand the conditions about pictures etc. Isn't satire automatically insulting?

b) I missed foreign sources among reputable references. There are many serious news sources that are not American or British, and in case they are not in English, could be translated, e.g. Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais. The list is a bit short.

c) What about other governmental institutions? E.g. GFZ, not political but an example, is definitely as reputable as USGS.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

a) I didn't quite understand the conditions about pictures etc. Isn't satire automatically insulting?

Good catch, we'll not want to be too crass, but perhaps we soften that condition a bit.

b) I missed foreign sources among reputable references. There are many serious news sources that are not American or British, and in case they are not in English, could be translated, e.g. Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais. The list is a bit short.

I think we'll need to standardize to English sources.

c) What about other governmental institutions? E.g. GFZ, not political but an example, is definitely as reputable as USGS.

I can add in a note about gov equivalents, good point!

 

[fresh_42]

I think we'll need to standardize to English sources.

I don't think that this is a good idea. I know quite a few serious sources that are not in English (I named 3 but I know more), or sometimes have an English version, and I also know English sources that are rubbish. The problem is that it seems to intend a certain level of quality, but what it does is, it restricts perspectives to US or UK sources. It brings a heavy bias into the discussion. E.g. French (Canadian, Spanish, or German) sources might have interesting comments you won't find in US references. If we only allow "American mainstream" even if the newspapers you listed are seen as left-wing sources among MAGA supporters, then discussions on international affairs become meaningless. My impression based on the questions I have been asked about our German political system was that particularly the perspectives from outside were interesting to have a comparison to the American perspective. It also makes quotations of important politicians difficult. European politicians are usually not interviewed in English. It is relevant what Macron or Trudeaux said in French, or Erdogan in Turkish. Ok, I don't know a serious Turkish source though and Erdogan managed to abolish non-conform media. Nevertheless, even the official Turkish propaganda is relevant to some discussions like about the Middle East.

My suggestion would be: basically English and otherwise a case-by-case consideration.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

My suggestion would be: basically English and otherwise a case-by-case consideration.

Fair, as long as there is proper translation availability

 

[fresh_42]

Fair, as long as there is proper translation availability

From my experiences with Google Translate - I use it if I'm too lazy to translate myself, to get a skeleton for long passages on English, or to check my wording - are generally positive. Since it works in both directions, verifications are also possible.

My objection to "English only" was that I think having observed that there is often an unspoken mental censorship in many American opinions. I read and saw non-satirical comments here that you will at most find on SNL, but not on MSN.

 

[EricDMMiller]

Not exactly a request, but something for consideration.

I am aware of the general guideline about AI generated text, but would that also include higher quality content generated by high end models like the Deep Research feature of ChatGPT?

As an example, this Google doc is an example of the quality of output that these high end tools can provide:

Containment and Dismantling of the U.S. Regime – Update as of March 2025

Subject: Containment and Dismantling of the U.S. Regime – Update as of March 2025Date: March 6, 2025 Key Takeaways (March 2025 Update) Authoritarian Consolidation in Washington: In the two months since President Trump’s inauguration (January 20, 2025), the U.S. government has undergone rapid au...

docs.google.com

The results are heavily sourced with in-context hyperlinks to allow immediate verification of nearly all factual claims made.

Direct links to the entire chat in ChatGPT can be provided as a further level of accountability and help identify bias in the results.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I am aware of the general guideline about AI generated text, but would that also include higher quality content generated by high end models like the Deep Research feature of ChatGPT?

Interesting suggestion! I think it's a slippery slope on this for now. I understand the tech is getting better and perhaps shortly we'll 180 on the guideline. For now, I'd say, use the tool to get a start on an idea or search and then use the sources generated to post here with your thread.

 

[EricDMMiller]

I am not suggesting they be used with abandon. I would suggest that if you do consider revising the applicable guideline, that linking to the complete chain of discussion be a requirement. The poster should also remain totally responsible for any such content posted in order to ensure that it complies with all of the other guidelines.

 

[phinds]

it restricts perspectives to US or UK sources. It brings a heavy bias into the discussion.

Canada and Australia are going to be sorry to hear this. THEY think they speak English.

 

[fresh_42]

Canada and Australia are going to be sorry to hear this. THEY think they speak English.

Depends on whom you ask.

 

[archosaur]

I don't know how something like this could be responsibly implemented, but I've always wished that it were possible to mark falsehoods and invalid arguments somehow. This would be a big feature and probably out of scope re: what you're asking for.

In this example, I'll refer to "strikes", by which I mean some kind of bad point associated with an account. Details TBD. Maybe they expire. Maybe they do or don't have consequences.

Like, if I say something that is easily refutable by a legitimate source, like "immigrants commit more crime than born citizens", as part of an argument, someone could object to my statement specifically - like a special "quote" feature that also means "this is false". That would start a review process that would would go like this:

1. the objector and I would see if we could sort it out ourselves in a parallel, dedicated thread where we trade / discuss sources. We have the opportunity to resolve the objection ourselves. No strikes if we come to an agreement -that's the dialectic!
   1. We come to agree the statement is true. No strike for either party.
   2. We come to agree the statement is false, and I am obligated to retract. No strike for either party.
   3. We can't agree
      1. The thread opens up to a "jury of our peers".
         1. They vote that my statement was false. I receive a strike and I have another opportunity to retract.
            1. I will not retract - I receive another strike.
            2. I accept the jury's conclusion and retract.
         2. They vote that my statement was true. Objector receives two strikes.
         3. The vote doesn't achieve a threshold, or the matter is otherwise inconclusive. No strikes.

This system would be so precarious. It would have to be designed very carefully and supported by a huge amount of good faith in order to prevent it from getting gamed, or turning into a "super downvote". It may only make sense to try such a thing with trivially refutable / verifiable facts, like "immigrants commit more crime than born citizens", as opposed to things like "There are lots of people who say they voted for X but didn't."

I would also worry that making pariahs of people won't accomplish anything but chase them off to other forums and reenforce an ideological bubble here. But the alternative, that willful liars can have the same platform or even bigger platform than people who respect truth, is the worst part about the internet, IMO. That's how it works almost everywhere else - might as well try something new, here.

 

[fresh_42]

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper, “The Open Society and its Enemies”, p.503, Routledge

 

[archosaur]

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper, “The Open Society and its Enemies”, p.503, Routledge

Yeah, I take your point. I could even see "strikes" from a formal system serving as a badge of honor. "Look how hard they've tried to silence me..."

 

[fresh_42]

I think requesting sources is the best we can achieve. I already recognized in my short time here how important this is. I constantly ask myself where I can get evidence from. While I answered a question, I thought, where in the world should I get an English description of our [German] electoral or budget law from? I was lucky that nobody asked. We should restrict the variety of sources less than we should punish - whatever this means - the lack of it. If somebody quotes The Sun or FOX News, then the validity of his argument speaks for itself.

It's dialogues like this:

The climate emergency is not what people are being sold. Billionaires who have invested in green technologies are forcing a lie n the world that needs to stop.

Leaving the rest of your post aside, I expect that you would not be able to provide sources for these claims that meet the General Content Guidelines of this site.

that will become a problem in my mind. We shouldn't be forced to demand evidence all the time. Posters should provide them unasked, even if this means that a source has a questionable reputation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't know how something like this could be responsibly implemented, but I've always wished that it were possible to mark falsehoods and invalid arguments somehow. This would be a big feature and probably out of scope re: what you're asking for.

@Borg is working on something like this with AI. @Borg can you elaborate your plans? Sources in general will always be important.

 

[Rive]

Climate change is already brought up. I think a pinned topic somewhere and some adjustments in the guidelines could have high preventive value: just a clarification that exactly what part of that can of worms can be up to discussions.

 

[Ian DF]

I think requesting sources is the best we can achieve. I already recognized in my short time here how important this is. I constantly ask myself where I can get evidence from. While I answered a question, I thought, where in the world should I get an English description of our [German] electoral or budget law from? I was lucky that nobody asked. We should restrict the variety of sources less than we should punish - whatever this means - the lack of it. If somebody quotes The Sun or FOX News, then the validity of his argument speaks for itself.

It's dialogues like this:

that will become a problem in my mind. We shouldn't be forced to demand evidence all the time. Posters should provide them unasked, even if this means that a source has a

Climate change is already brought up. I think a pinned topic somewhere and some adjustments in the guidelines could have high preventive value: just a clarification that exactly what part of that can of worms can be up to discussions.

In a way I agree and in a way I don’t.
When asked what are your political views, this has a wide range and could involve several subjects
I think it would be good that a person could answer in their opinions and how they influence their approach to politics.
I also agree that such an open question should identify “please add supporting data” because it is an open question not a specific focus.
If someone wishes to focus on a specific subject n the answer then they should be able to reply with a link saying if they agree or disagree and would “like to continue the matter in “link to the relevant forum” “
This would then allow people to take specific items in a response and discuss their not that part
In my response I spoke about Law and Order as well. That could also have been raised and I could have been directed to the group to provide more information there

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@phinds I added skeptical, party and fearful reactions

 

[fresh_42]

Could you also add a label "Politics" or more precisely "Foreign Politics"? General political questions don't fit in the current system other than in "other" which is a bit too broad in my opinion.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Could you also add a label "Politics" or more precisely "Foreign Politics"? General political questions don't fit in the current system other than in "other" which is a bit too broad in my opinion.

Shouldn't most be politics? Foreign is relative. Wouldn't they usually go in INTL forum?

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, sorry, I didn't see that one. Could you move https://civicswatch.com/threads/how-should-the-world-react-to-the-new-us-doctrines.40/ into INTL?

 

[fresh_42]

Nice logo and new icon, by the way!

 

[placebo]

I would also worry that making pariahs of people won't accomplish anything but chase them off to other forums and reenforce an ideological bubble here.

I don't have a problem with running off people who consistently engage in intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies. They're not here for a good-faith debate.

 

[archosaur]

I don't have a problem with running off people who consistently engage in intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies. They're not here for a good-faith debate.

It's the perennial problem. How do you foster an environment where consensus can be challenged, but without platforming bad actors?