The folks at Civil Rights Defenders have developed a rather unique CAPTCHA. They are calling it the Civil Rights CAPTCHA.
To get you up to speed, a CAPTCHA is a method of discerning whether a comment is being submitted by an actual person behind a keyboard or a bot (an automated program that pretty much does nothing but generate spam). A very common form of the CAPTCHA is presenting a distorted image of a string of letters and numbers and requiring the correct interpretation or translation of said letters/numbers in order the comment in question to be accepted.
The Civil Rights Defenders have put their own spin on this method comment moderation by adding a bit of a twist:
Instead of visually decoding an image of distorted letters, the user has to take a stand regarding facts about human rights. Depending on whether the described situation is positively or negatively charged, the CAPTHA generates three random words from a database. These words describe positive and negative emotions. The user selects the word that best matches how they feel about the situation, and writes the word in the CAPTCHA. Only one answer is correct, the answer showing compassion and empathy.
So this CAPTCHA system would mean presenting a potential commentor with a situation and expecting them to give the right emotional response in order for their comment to be accepted.
How effective do you think this would be in keeping trolls out of a given space?
Is it possible that people who are otherwise perfectly civil and reasonable would be effectively banned from a space because they disagree with what someone else says (the Civil Rights Defenders themselves will maintain the database of situations and correct answers) on a given issue?
Would this protect civil spaces from invasive people, pushing their own agendas?
Could this lead to an even greater division between different schools of thought when unity is so crucial?
What do you think?
Troll image courtesy of Flickr/Goosemouse
This is an excellent tool for limiting online discussions only to those who already agree with you! I heartily endorse the use of such valuable gadgets for screening out any possible dissent or debate, which would be harmful to the safe and mutually supportive environment so essential to free speech.
(Oh and for the record folks I’m not asking about this because the GMP staff is thinking about implementing it. This is quite literally something I found and was wondering what people thought about it.)
I don’t object to sites implementing measures to attract who they want and keep out who they don’t, because web sites aren’t unrestricted free speech zones, but this seems like an ineffective and counter-productive way to achieve that. It’s not a CAPTCHA, because it’s not designed to keep bots out. Nothing about it compels people to answer truthfully, so even if the goal is to keep out a class of readers that the site operator(s) consider unwelcome, it would fail in that. Since it wouldn’t achieve either it’s pretend purpose or it’s real purpose, I can’t imagine what it would… Read more »
Wow, this is totally wrong. A troll is someone is deliberately trying to offend readers for their own purposes, not someone who states an idea they believe and of which, the reader takes offense. One of the Internet’s great contributions to society is its ability to provide a microphone to all persons bridiging diverse points of view (that and porn of course). It would be a huge disservice to society to create barrier to speech we don’t like.
I’m a little out of my element, technology-wise, so maybe someone can explain this a little further. If you want to make sure the person responding is a real person, then why not just use some kind of randomized words or characters like everyone else? I don’t see the advantage of the multiple choice option in terms of preventing spambots. If you want to keep trollish responses off a blog, then what’s to keep a troll from lying about his true feelings in order to get his message posted? I don’t see typing that answer as “taking a stand” so… Read more »
I think what they are hoping is that a troll would be so caught up in the emotions of their trolling they would pick the wrong answer, thus showing they are a trolll.
ineed wello, and if only one attempt is allowed, before the ip is banned, a disruptive person can simply use a proxy ip to post their comment. i wonder if this captcha is an attempt to make the troll more accepting of difference, by forcing the troll to repeatedly recite the answerofinclusivity – the more that most brains are washed in a substance, the more likely they are to absorb it. now clearly, most trolls are not going to have their minds changed, simply due to this captcha tactic – most trolls will simply lie. so im guessing the captcha… Read more »
I agree with Max above, people usually know the “correct” answer. Now in the given example (how do you feel about the pride parade….), if I am really honest, first I feel indifferent, then a little “finally”, then a little “happy”, but then quite annoyed that I am supposed some sort of moral purity test.
correction:
“but then quite annoyed that I am supposed to pass some sort of moral purity test.”
Stifles conversation, it’d just be an echo chamber of like-minded people. How could they question themselves decently? Everyone also feels differently about situations, why is there only one valid answer? Some are disgusted by LGBT rights and that’s their right to be, others are in favour and that’s their right as well, but should neither group talk to each other?
Archy:
“Some are disgusted by LGBT rights and that’s their right to be…”
Of course people have the right to feel whatever they, but if they voice an opinion which fundamentally denies basic rights to somebody else, they should be condemned and socially shunned. When I say fundamental rights I don’t mean something like gay marriage, but rather things like the right to consensual sex.
And when they decide that your viewpoints deserve the same treatment, what then? This country is divided because we have decided that flinging insults is somehow equivalent to “taking the high road.” We come up with excuses for our own behavior, because it is far easier than persuasive engagement. Rather than taking on the hard work of educating and bearing witness, we disengage and shame, as though those behaviors are laudable. I’m sorry, but the very idea that people “deserve condemnation” simply because of they voiced their opinion is destructive. I don’t care what opinion they voiced, the decision to… Read more »
I agree
Mike L, “And when they decide that your viewpoints deserve the same treatment, what then?” Obviously I would not like it and would think that they are wrong, because my opinions are not that problematic. “I’m sorry, but the very idea that people “deserve condemnation” simply because of they voiced their opinion is destructive.” I think that societies enforce a basic level of common morals, so that the people get along in their everyday lives. Those morals cannot be logically deducted from nothing and hence they must be something we believe to be obvious truth. For example when somebody believes… Read more »
Ok, should we all start socially shunning some feminists who do not support a males right to financial abortion? I have no problem with people calling them out on their shit but silencing them is a bit much…as much as I want to do it to some, it goes against free speech.
Archy, see also my reply to Mike L above. “Ok, should we all start socially shunning some feminists who do not support a males right to financial abortion?” INo we should not, the values which renounciation would lead to social shunning should be defined very narrow. In you example we have a dilemma, the kid has a right to support and holding the people responsible for the kids existence (usually biological parents) accountable is not only commonly agreed upon, but also reasonable. On the other hand it limits the fathers freedom. ” I have no problem with people calling them… Read more »
I think that the great majority of trolls is capable of figuring out what they are supposed to answer. And I don’t think many people have trouble lying to a computer screen. Given a spambot that can break regular captchas, I think it would be easy to modify it so that it has a 1 in 3 chance against this new captcha. So…seems like a gimmick to me.