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.

Comment: We don't need free trade deals with "developing" nations. Until China starts playing by the same rules as the rest of the Developed world we don't need to be signing trade deals with them.

I trust the Russians more than I trust the Chinese.
Non-obscene

Comment: Obama failed in closing Guantanamo Bays prison, after two full terms. Was it his Bay of Pigs and did he learn? A question rarely asked and never answered. But hey, lets give him a Nobel and call it good!
Non-obscene

Comment: I would add that while there seems to be a justified outrage about the "wealthy paying their fair share", to quote our PM, there is no equivalent sentiment towards something as idiotic as the various carbon taxes different levels of government are imposing on the citizens. Macleans magazine has estimated the costs (direct and indirect) to the average household at 1200 dollars per year after 2022. This level of taxation will in no way allow the gov't to reach it's 2030 targets. Even assuming it did, it would make literally no difference (zero) to the amount of co2 in the atmosphere by that date. In other words it's just virtue signalling, an expensive gesture that the middle class (and those working hard to join it!) will bear the brunt of paying for. Where's the outrage in the media and public over that.

Non-obscene