In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

[EX Q]: Comment: Like the popup ad here in CB says: "Ignorance is Toxic"

I'll just let you continue blabbing your misinformation but abridge my comment to "HK has more autonomy than any other major China city."

BTW...writing this from HK, overlooking Victoria Harbour right NOW.
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Your friend Jack has some serious problems.  He claims to be a Christian, he is married and I assume he will say he loves his wife.  How could Jack support a philandering liar like tRump?  And I wonder what it is about America that Jack loves?  He seems to be supporting the destruction of everything worthwhile, from public discourse, our government, our freedoms and our respect.
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Lets set the record straight. Colin Powel, two, yes only two emails to him from aides that were later classified confidential, not more than 2,000, with more than 20 classified at the highest levels. Bush email server owned by the RNC?  Not illegal and no classified material sent or received, just an election email account set up and owned by the RNC. No problem there. I would not be outraged if Hillary resembled either of these two. But she does not resemble them, she resembles a criminal who thinks that classifications on sensitive national security information is silly and does not apply to her.
[EX A]:
Non-obscene