> Rendering them as individual pages would mean publishing an indexed, searchable copy of every private message in the corpus — including the many that concern ordinary members and people who wrote to the party, not public figures.
Besides the practical hassle of downloading 300gb and wasting time .
It's their report, their claims, their argument. The burden to make the case and be transparent is theirs, not mine. It's dishonest to present AI summaries as facts.
There should be at least a sample of the source text so we can see how well the descriptions match the sources.
Also, where is the prompt, the model? The methods used to present the content.
It's funny how much critique of "AI slop" is on HN, and here's a case where even mild hallucination is very misleading, yet the bar is incredibly low.
So what's your argument? accept it at face value? It's an incomplete report. I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out the gaps to people who may not take the time to explore what is on the site.
Afd are just the Nazi party all over again. To quote the Wikipedia entry "In 2017, ten AfD Bundestag members were found to have participated in a closed Facebook group named "the Patriots" in which, among other things, antisemitic, racist, pro-Nazi and conspiratorial posts were widespread."
Imagine going back in time to tell Hitler that, in 80 years, the German far-right would be led by a publicly pro-Jewish lesbian. Hell… maybe someone did, and that’s why he shot himself.
The pact included industrial cooperation and dividing up foreign conquests. To simply quote Wikipedia:
"In August of that year [1939], the countries expanded their economic relationship by entering into a Trade and Credit agreement whereby the Soviet Union sent critical raw materials to Germany in exchange for weapons, military technology and civilian machinery. That deal accompanied the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which contained secret protocols dividing central Europe between them, after which both Nazi forces and Soviet forces invaded territories listed within their 'spheres of influence'."
It feels to me we should be using quotations for the term "far-right", it has the same feel to me as Republicans calling Obama a socialist when he was still president.
No, Hitler himself said that the cooptation of "socialism" was on purpose[0], don't get fooled by simple naming, it's the easiest way one can be manipulated (e.g.: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"):
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
yeah...that's my point, these namings are pretty devoid of _consistent_ meaning, both with respect to what they reference (as in your democratic people's republic of korea example) as well as across time.
There is no 'jargon' to compare left and right leaning parties from 80 years ago, to today's versions. To exercise ANY comparison within that context in a serious tone, is to build the most flammable straw man that even laughing at it would set the argument to ashes.
eta: I realize arguing with bots and paid farms is to do a disservice to everyone, but it's just painful to see these bad faith arguments presented as 8th grade reading level trick-questions. That said, fucking vote. It's your democratic responsibility in society that is based on social governance.
No, Hitler himself said that the cooptation of "socialism" was on purpose[0], don't get fooled by simple naming, it's the easiest way one can be manipulated (e.g.: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"):
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
The socialism part was fake. The named it so because socialism was popular and the promises are hard to distinguish from some right wing parties. In the past jews were the main enemy, now its muslims.
National Socialist was a lie at the time. The meaning of socialism has not changed. Labels are assertions, not prescriptions. The inconsistency is truth, not ideology.
> Rendering them as individual pages would mean publishing an indexed, searchable copy of every private message in the corpus — including the many that concern ordinary members and people who wrote to the party, not public figures.
which is suspicious
It's their report, their claims, their argument. The burden to make the case and be transparent is theirs, not mine. It's dishonest to present AI summaries as facts.
There should be at least a sample of the source text so we can see how well the descriptions match the sources.
Also, where is the prompt, the model? The methods used to present the content.
It's funny how much critique of "AI slop" is on HN, and here's a case where even mild hallucination is very misleading, yet the bar is incredibly low.
“I refuse to and I’m still going to complain.”
Look dude, maybe this is your project , so you're defensive.
I saw the tag line, visited and thought "ooh some spicy emails that'll be interesting. ".
Then i found a bunch of AI slop, with no grounding.
That's all it is.
Website screams AI slop though.
That’s old news [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
"In August of that year [1939], the countries expanded their economic relationship by entering into a Trade and Credit agreement whereby the Soviet Union sent critical raw materials to Germany in exchange for weapons, military technology and civilian machinery. That deal accompanied the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which contained secret protocols dividing central Europe between them, after which both Nazi forces and Soviet forces invaded territories listed within their 'spheres of influence'."
point is, these phrases and names seem to have different connotations in different times.
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint...
the namings are just messy.
eta: I realize arguing with bots and paid farms is to do a disservice to everyone, but it's just painful to see these bad faith arguments presented as 8th grade reading level trick-questions. That said, fucking vote. It's your democratic responsibility in society that is based on social governance.
If that phrase were evaluated in the US in 2026, would that be "far left"?
I ask because it seems these phrases and coordinate systems are just an inconsistent clickbait mess.
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacobus_Belsen_-_Das...
That's 95 years ago, how have we not internalized that things named by bad people don't usually do what the name says?