The cool thing about this kind of filter is that it specifically has nothing to do with what the potential poster is about to post. As long as the questions remain about the facts in the article, intuitively it seems terrible for virality (as it extends the time frame between casual emotion and action), so I doubt any large news outlet would actually implement this.

It can at most be about the facts of the article as understood by the writer (Murray Gell-Man applies here), which the commenter may very well know better than the writer.

As long as they are facts stated in the article (and the article has been read), I don't see an issue. However, a good NLP might still make automated spam posting possible.

The example they give is correctly stating what an acronym in the story stands for. The trouble starts if you have to answer questions like "Which Senators are pro-life" or "Who threatened to exit the EU" which can be leading or misleading or have multiple correct answers depending on your world view.

Then turn the questions into factual "Which Senators are named as pro-life in this article?", "Which country's representative threatened to exit the EU?". Even when you disagree, you should be able to give an accurate account of the opinion you disagree with.

The problem is if you disagree you get another confirmation of the leanings of the organization. I agree with everdev, you really need to stick with indisputable facts. Your first question is problematic because you might dispute the characterization regardless of what the article says.

What is the problem with confirming the leanings of the organization just before you are going to comment about completely disagreeing with the article's characterization?

If the article mentions that "Senator X of the pro-life camp said ..." you answer the quiz question with "X" (because it's an indisputable fact that the article calls X pro-life) and then you are free to comment how "pro-life" is a biased term, or that X is a shill for Y who supported murdering babies in the past, or whatever.

You don't have to agree with the article's stance to know how to answer the questions, you just have to know what the article's stance is.

According to the AP stylebook, "pro-life" would need to be replaced with "anti-abortion" because that is more neutral and carries fewer weighted connotations with it. I would suspect a large population would disagree with the AP conclusion, but it goes to show how difficult it is to avoid bias even in a simple fact-based question.

If the article uses "pro-life" in the text, then the question asking you to confirm that you read that part doesn't add any new bias.

If you didn't read the part but skimmed over it, you might be motivated to leave a comment to mention the AP stylebook's recommendation, to the benefit of other commenters.

> Imagine questions written by MSNBC & FoxNews for the same story.

As far as I can tell from briefly viewing them, the MSNBC and Fox News web sites don't allow comments.

Are you sure you're not blocking scripts? A random Fox News story showed me plenty of comments: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/30/us-allies-ready-to-u...

From the source, it seems they're using Adobe Livefyre.

I was using them as examples of two groups that would write totally different questions both with a prejudice towards a particular worldview.

They would also write articles with a different worldview.