• AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The government’s line is increasingly that both the Quran burnings themselves and the outrage over them are being fuelled by foreign agents provocateurs and disinformation efforts – including from Russia - which is enraged at the prospect of Sweden joining NATO.

    Ministers have so far ruled out amending Sweden’s freedom of speech law or banning Quran burnings outright, with Kristersson insisting that there is a place for responsibility as opposed to state restriction.

    Starting this month, border guards are being given enhanced stop-and-search and electronic surveillance powers, a move that Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer says will allow them “to identify people coming into Sweden who could represent a threat to security.”

    Earlier this year, ex-prime minister and Social Democrats leader Magdalena Andersson told national broadcaster SVT that those burning the Quran in protest are “useful idiots” doing an unwitting service to those seeking to divide Swedish society, and that they had a duty to consider the consequences of their actions.

    With ideas like these front and centre in its platform, the party has risen to become the second-largest in the Swedish parliament, and it is now sustaining the current coalition government via a confidence and supply agreement, meaning its voice in public debate is louder than ever.

    After at least a decade of notoriously harsh comments about Muslims, he tweeted last week that Islam is “an anti-democratic, violent and misogynistic religion/ideology”, describing the prophet Muhammad as “a warlord, mass murderer, slave trader and robber”.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      fyi this summary is nonsense and gets multiple things wrong. great example of ai getting confused.

      • Rikudou_Sage
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        FYI, it cannot get anything wrong, it takes sentences directly from the article. Sure, it might not be a good summary (I haven’t checked), but it definitely doesn’t contain any falsehoods (unless the article does as well).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          specifically, the context for the 5th paragraph is replaced, making it seem like it’s talking about the social democrats when in reality it is talking about the sweden democrats. Your logic is flawed, falsehoods can be and are introduced despite each sentence being taken straight from the article.