Rachel Christenson
My feedback
1 result found
-
22nd ranked
Hello. While we cannot speak about specific comments, policy interpretations, or actions action in relation to specific comments outside of with their original poster, we seek to apply the Yahoo Community Guidelines as evenly, fairly, and objectively as possible.
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Rachel Christenson
commented
Please read this. It's the comment I posted after doing considerable research:
“The evidence given is anecdotal. Some who like big issues kept plain may take comfort in it, but I would not want our government to do so.
We have spent billions putting extremely expensive equipment in space around our planet with the specific intent of getting more accurate data about what the troposphere and the oceans are up to. We have also spent billions on super-sophisticated computer modeling to chew on the data that space-based systems provide.
The ocean surface is turbulent, so there isn't such a thing as absolute sea level. What scientists use to keep an eye on what is happening is a reference base called Global Mean Surface Level, which is the aggregated product of huge amounts of ongoing altimetric data collection done by special satellites. Computers make subtle corrections for the water vapor condition of the atmospheric traverse of the light pulses used and compile the results into a model which is then compared to a reference base called the Geoid (basically where everything would be if absolute dead calm persisted everywhere).
By this means, over time, a bigger picture emerges.
In general, the science has held up pretty **** well, but ideological interference from political, religious, business and change-phobic interests has made it difficult for our government to act on the product of the investments it has made in this area of information technology.
This could prove to be very unfortunate for many.”
All of it is absolutely true. Yet your moderator algorithm claimed people could be offended by it. Does this mean you are censoring facts that some people find inconvenient? I have run into this several times before, despite being careful with my use of speech.
Inadvertently, you could be sacrificing valuable contribution with the use of this algorithm - the same algorithm that allowed another commenter to refer to Democratic Party legislators as “idiots”. If you, reading this, are a human being, know that we genuinely appreciate your efforts. I just think the algorithm needs to be better, otherwise people we could benefit hearing from are going to stop participating.
Rachel Christenson
supported this idea
·
My only comment is to affirm how important I think Yahoo has become to the way our society works, from the highest to the humblest levels. In that sense it is one vitally important way that the most damaging potentials of the wealth dichotomy are being, at least partially, countervailed. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the service Yahoo provides.