Not exact matches
The new study will be led by outside researchers including the Dangerous
Speech Project, a research group that studies how
public speech could incite
bad and even violent behavior.
In a
public speech a few years ago, President Bush expressed this commonly - held view, albeit within the context of a sober warning: «The powers of science are morally neutral — as easily used for
bad purposes as good ones.
Provided it does not disrupt the flow of debate, being able to use technology to deliver
speeches and to communicate with the
public from the green benches is no
bad thing.
I am the
worst, when it comes to nail polish,
public speech or rolling a burrito.
And her final
speech, when she admits she was an abuse victim but that her
worst abusers were the American
public, is dynamite.
Government officials have been as
bad as or
worse than alarmist scientists in attempting to suppress skeptical climate research and
speech, and hiding their efforts from
public view.
DW, in a brief
speech to the
public It is easier to say Paris is a
bad deal, MAGA.
On how Facebook will measure its impact on fixing privacy: Zuckerberg wants to be able to measure «the prevalence of different categories of
bad content like fake news, hate
speech, bullying, terrorism... That's going to end up being the way we should be held accountable and measured by the
public... My hope is that over time the playbook and scorecard we put out will also be followed by other internet platforms so that way there can be a standard measure across the industry.»