TASK DEFINITION: Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
PROBLEM: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Rachel Botsman ? In her witty new book Australian technology author and TED celebrity Rachel Botsman tells us why it did not work. Who Can You Trust? How Technology Brought Us Together and Why It Could Drive Us Apart might be a bit too perky for some but it reveals some deep truths.
With industrial power collapsed  social media’s “distributed trust” began its run to win popular trust.  Botsman  even claims to have predicted the next stage of evolution  anticipating Airbnb  Zipcar and Uber in  her  previous book. At first the masses took to social technology like ducks to water but few thought through the costs of power flowing from institutional experts to less sophisticated individuals. It turned out that these social media had institutions too  if less hierarchical  but still leading to someone at the top with a great degree of control over the people’s “open” media below them.
 Botsman  says  she  would not have written  her  book if  she  did not think distributed networks could solve many problems and develop popular trust  but the many examples presented in  her  book demonstrate that “distributed trust always seem to lead us back to centralized power ” with Facebook  Amazon  and Alibaba leading the list.
 Her  thesis is that distributed systems need to know who is telling the truth in order to be social but their media technology develop so fast and anonymously it becomes difficult to trace accountability. Perhaps 75 percent of automobiles will self-drive by 2040. How can sufficient trust develop in such a major activity in such a short time? Blockchains like Bitcoin may replace governmental currency and financial transactions. Robots threaten to take everyone’s job. The most famous bot was HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey and we all know what happened then. Some “trust pause” will certainly be necessary for such major social transitions.
Take the number one social media technology guy  Mark Zuckerberg  who created Facebook to be an open forum for public discussion. Yet  after social media was accused of biasing the presidential election even  he  had to reluctantly concede (the second time) that there was an abundance of fake news on  his  site  which  he  then promised to fix in a socially positive way.  His  solution was to balance alternative views by adding “additional perspectives ” including noting after doubtful material that fact checkers disputed the claims in the original published news. But who would do the “fact checking”?
 Botsman  does not mention  it  but Google’s top scientist Ray Kurzweil had bigger ideas. Computers would be thinking for themselves by 2014 with humans becoming immortal soon after. Humans would become immortal under Kurzweil’s Calico project to replicate nature’s control of mitochondrial DNA by moving toxic bacteria into the cell nucleus to stop aging. With age under control people would live forever. At the same time  artificial intelligence would develop computers that learn by themselves. Ageless individuals could then link an AI machine to their brain so they could give accurate and immediate responses to every kind of question. But if this takes place instantly  is that a person still a person or a computer?
China’s Social Credit System would produce a “social credit score” for every Chinese citizen and introduce national networks of shame to ameliorate and control unruly segments of the population. This system should have a bullish future in much of the world now under authoritarian governments.  Botsman  quips: “Today China  tomorrow a place near you.”
Not a place in the U.S. with its democratic government protecting privacy  right? One big obstacle to such protection mentioned by  Botsman  is that government regulation simply cannot keep up with the explosive rate of change in private social media technology. There is that free speech and press stuff but Congress just approved another renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act seventeen years after 9/11 and few doubt that some similar future horrendous terrorist act would make the government’s surveillance even more intrusive.
 Botsman ’s general solution to increase social trust is to rely upon reputation  which is sound  but extremely difficult to evaluate as  her  book proves.
How do we even know if  Botsman  isn’t a bot already  predicting China for us all?

SOLUTION: Positive

PROBLEM: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Brian Krebs ? These terrifying tales sent me looking for a book I had been meaning to read for quite some time. My former Washington Post colleague  Brian Krebs  left the newspaper in 2009 to dedicate  himself  to a blog on cybersecurity: KrebsOnSecurity.com. Out of  his  work and research came âSpam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime â From Global Epidemic to Your Front Door.â
But  Krebs  has made a background believer out of me.
âThe Internet of today is truly a transformative communications and learning tool that radically enriches the lives of billions each day â  Krebs  writes. âYet  never before in the history of the Internet has this medium been more fraught with snares and neâer-do-wells looking to fleece the unwary.
With our spam filters and the constant drilling to not open suspicious emails  weâve been lulled into a false sense of security   Krebs  says.
âThe spam ecosystem is a constantly evolving technological and sociological crime machine that feeds on itself â writes  Krebs . âThus far  the criminals responsible for unleashing this daily glut of digital disease are doing a stupendous job of overwhelming the security industry.â
 Krebs  spends a lot of time introducing the major and minor spam players. Itâs like a Jason Bourne movie but with criminals who donât shoot at folks (well  some do). They instead fire out malicious spam infecting tens of millions of computers and  as a result  rake in millions of dollars.
Waiting for you at the end of the book is a very resourceful chapter on how to protect yourself. Youâll be safer following  Krebs âs three rules for online security:
Even if you donât buy âSpam Nation â make  Krebs âs blog regular reading.  His  reporting will frighten you. It does me. As  he  writes  âthose who endeavor to remain blissfully unaware of their role in becoming part of the solution will almost invariably end up becoming part of the problem.â
Iâm hosting an online discussion about âSpam Nationâ at noon Eastern time on Nov. 2 at washingtonpost.com/discussions.  Krebs  will join me to answer your cybersecurity questions.

SOLUTION: Positive

PROBLEM: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Sanders Erica Garner ? “She was a loving daughter  sister  mother  friend — and though she didn’t ask to be an activist  she responded to the personal tragedy of seeing her father die while being arrested in New York City by becoming a leading proponent for criminal justice reform and for an end to police brutality ” said Sanders. “I had the honor of getting to know  Erica  and I was inspired by the commitment  she  made working toward a more just world for  her  children and future generations.  She  was a fighter for justice and will not be forgotten.  Jane  and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Garner family and to all those  she  has impacted.”
Garner  who had recently given birth to a second child  endorsed Sanders for president before the New York primary in April 2016. In a video released at the time   Garner  told the story of how her father died after being placed in a police chokehold  and she praised Sanders for taking the Black Lives Matter movement seriously.
“People are dying. This is real. This is not TV ” said  Garner . “We need a president who’s going to talk about it.”
 Garner ’s endorsement was one of the highest-profile interactions between the Black Lives Matter movement and the Democratic Party — a discussion  often heated  that was rarely echoed in the Republican primaries.

SOLUTION:
Positive

