romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
During the same court battle, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights". In June 2010, Viacom's lawsuit against Google was rejected in a summary judgment, with U.S. federal Judge Louis L. Stanton stating that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling.

Q1: How much data did youtube have to hand over to Viacom as a result of the lawsuit?
A1: 12 terabytes
Q2: Which organization spoke against the courts ruling?
A2: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Q3: What did Viacom plan to do after the ruling in 2010?
A3: appeal
Q4: What happened to Viacom's lawsuit in 2010?
A4: rejected in a summary judgment
Q5: Who was the residing judge of the lawsuit?
A5: Louis L. Stanton
In June 2007, YouTube began trials of a system for automatic detection of uploaded videos that infringe copyright. Google CEO Eric Schmidt regarded this system as necessary for resolving lawsuits such as the one from Viacom, which alleged that YouTube profited from content that it did not have the right to distribute. The system, which became known as Content ID, creates an ID File for copyrighted audio and video material, and stores it in a database. When a video is uploaded, it is checked against the database, and flags the video as a copyright violation if a match is found.

Q1: In 2007 youtube launched an automated system to detect what?
A1: videos that infringe copyright
Q2: Who was Google's CEO in 2007?
A2: Eric Schmidt
Q3: What is the name of the system that automatically detects copyright violations?
A3: Content ID
Q4: Why did the CEO of Google think the new software was necessary?
A4: resolving lawsuits
Q5: What does Content ID do if an upload is too close a match to a known copyright material?
A5: flags the video
An independent test in 2009 uploaded multiple versions of the same song to YouTube, and concluded that while the system was "surprisingly resilient" in finding copyright violations in the audio tracks of videos, it was not infallible. The use of Content ID to remove material automatically has led to controversy in some cases, as the videos have not been checked by a human for fair use. If a YouTube user disagrees with a decision by Content ID, it is possible to fill in a form disputing the decision. YouTube has cited the effectiveness of Content ID as one of the reasons why the site's rules were modified in December 2010 to allow some users to upload videos of unlimited length.

Q1: What was the ultimate view of Content ID's performance after a 2009 test?
A1: surprisingly resilient
Q2: As of 2010 what is the maximum length of a video a user can upload given the proper authority?
A2: unlimited
Q3: How does one dispute the ruling of Content ID?
A3: fill in a form
Q4: What happened to the sites rules in Dec. 2010?
A4: were modified
YouTube relies on its users to flag the content of videos as inappropriate, and a YouTube employee will view a flagged video to determine whether it violates the site's terms of service. In July 2008, the Culture and Media Committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom stated that it was "unimpressed" with YouTube's system for policing its videos, and argued that "proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites hosting user-generated content". YouTube responded by stating:

Q1: Youtube depends on who to flag inappropriate videos?
A1: users
Q2: Who checks the flagged videos for unauthorized content?
A2: a YouTube employee
Q3: Who of the house of commons spoke out on youtube's policies?
A3: the Culture and Media Committee
Q4: The United Kingdom stated it was what with youtube's policies with moderating its content?
A4: unimpressed
Q5: When did the UK speak out against youtube's copyright policies?
A5: In July 2008
Most videos enable users to leave comments, and these have attracted attention for the negative aspects of both their form and content. In 2006, Time praised Web 2.0 for enabling "community and collaboration on a scale never seen before", and added that YouTube "harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred". The Guardian in 2009 described users' comments on YouTube as:

Q1: Most videos enable users to do what
A1: leave comments
Q2: What has attracted negative attention about comments on youtube besides their content?
A2: their form
Q3: Time in 2006 wrote that youtube harnessed the wisdom and what else of humanity?
A3: stupidity
Q4: Which magazine wrote about youtube in a 2009 article on user comments?
A4: The Guardian
Q5: Some of the positive aspects of youtube might be that it provides what on a scale we've never seen before?
A5: community and collaboration
On November 6, 2013, Google implemented a new comment system that requires all YouTube users to use a Google+ account in order to comment on videos and making the comment system Google+ oriented. The changes are in large part an attempt to address the frequent criticisms of the quality and tone of YouTube comments. They give creators more power to moderate and block comments, and add new sorting mechanisms to ensure that better, more relevant discussions appear at the top. The new system restored the ability to include URLs in comments, which had previously been removed due to problems with abuse. In response, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim posted the question "why the fuck do I need a google+ account to comment on a video?" on his YouTube channel to express his negative opinion of the change. The official YouTube announcement received 20,097 "thumbs down" votes and generated more than 32,000 comments in two days. Writing in the Newsday blog Silicon Island, Chase Melvin noted that "Google+ is nowhere near as popular a social media network as Facebook, but it's essentially being forced upon millions of YouTube users who don't want to lose their ability to comment on videos" and "Discussion forums across the Internet are already bursting with outcry against the new comment system". In the same article Melvin goes on to say:

Q1: When did youtube first require the user to have a google account before posting a comment?
A1: November 6, 2013
Q2: The changes to the google+ additions allowed uploaders to better moderate and what to comments?
A2: block
Q3: There were better sorting functions put in place in 2013 to make sure what kind of comments appeared on top?
A3: more relevant discussions
Q4: What is youtube co-founder Karim's first name?
A4: Jawed
Q5: How many thumbs down votes did youtube's official statement about the new commenting system get within two days?
A5: 20,097
In some countries, YouTube is completely blocked, either through a long term standing ban or for more limited periods of time such as during periods of unrest, the run-up to an election, or in response to upcoming political anniversaries. In other countries access to the website as a whole remains open, but access to specific videos is blocked. In cases where the entire site is banned due to one particular video, YouTube will often agree to remove or limit access to that video in order to restore service.

Q1: youtube is completely what in some places?
A1: blocked
Q2: Why besides limited periods of time would youtube not be allowed in a country?
A2: long term standing ban
Q3: What might happen in a restrictive state even if you do have access to the youtube site itself?
A3: specific videos is blocked
In May 2014, prior to the launch of YouTube's subscription-based Music Key service, the independent music trade organization Worldwide Independent Network alleged that YouTube was using non-negotiable contracts with independent labels that were "undervalued" in comparison to other streaming services, and that YouTube would block all music content from labels who do not reach a deal to be included on the paid service. In a statement to the Financial Times in June 2014, Robert Kyncl confirmed that YouTube would block the content of labels who do not negotiate deals to be included in the paid service "to ensure that all content on the platform is governed by its new contractual terms." Stating that 90% of labels had reached deals, he went on to say that "while we wish that we had [a] 100% success rate, we understand that is not likely an achievable goal and therefore it is our responsibility to our users and the industry to launch the enhanced music experience." The Financial Times later reported that YouTube had reached an aggregate deal with Merlin Network—a trade group representing over 20,000 independent labels, for their inclusion in the service. However, YouTube itself has not confirmed the deal.

Q1: How many independent labels did the Merlin Network represent?
A1: 20,000
Q2: What was the percentage of labels youtube had signed contracts with prior to the planned launch date?
A2: 90%
Q3: What was youtube planning on doing to labels it did not reach a deal with?
A3: block all music content
Q4: Which journalistic organization released the reports of youtube's agreement with the Merlin Network?
A4: The Financial Times
Q5: Why did youtube want to ensure only contractees music was played?
A5: to launch the enhanced music experience
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Q1: Who made a metaphor about a wall of separation?
A1: Jefferson
Q2: What has the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly cited?
A2: metaphor
Q3: When was the case of Reynolds v. United States?
A3: 1879
Q4: What did the Court write about Jefferson's comments as it related to the scope and effect of the First Amendment?
A4: authoritative declaration
Q5: What was the clause against establishment of religion by law intended to erect?
A5: a wall of separation between church and state
Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany. They included nonconformists like the Puritans, who were Protestant Christians fleeing religious persecution from the Anglican King of England. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn of Pennsylvania ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, putting dissenting churches at a significant disadvantage.

Q1: What was one of the reason early immigrant groups came to America?
A1: to worship freely
Q2: What were Protestant Christians fleeing from?
A2: religious persecution
Q3: Who was persecuting the Puritans?
A3: King of England
Q4: What did William Penn ensure the protection of in his colony?
A4: religious minorities
Q5: What did the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony both establish?
A5: churches
^Note 2: in 1789 the Georgia Constitution was amended as follows: "Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged to do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles."

Q1: What may no person within Georgia be deprived of the privilege of doing in any manner agreeable to them?
A1: worshipping God
Q2: When was the Georgia Constitution amended to add Article IV, Section 10?
A2: 1789
Q3: What can a citizen of Georgia not be compelled to do?
A3: attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment
Q4: What is constitutionally forbidden to be established in the state of Georgia?
A4: No one religious society
Q5: What will no person be denied the enjoyment of in Georgia based on their religious principles?
A5: any civil right
^Note 5: The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office. Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

Q1: When did the North Carolina Constitution disestablish the Anglican church?
A1: 1776
Q2: What religious denomination was the only one allowed to hold public office in NC until 1835?
A2: Protestants
Q3: What category did the NC Constitution broaden the people allowed to hold public office to from 1835 to 1876?
A3: Christians
Q4: What part of the NC Constitution forbids atheists from holding public office?
A4: Article VI, Section 8
Q5: When did the U.S. Supreme Court rule clauses forbidding people from holding public office based on their religion was unenforceable?
A5: 1961
The Flushing Remonstrance shows support for separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century, stating their opposition to religious persecution of any sort: "The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, so love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage." The document was signed December 27, 1657 by a group of English citizens in America who were affronted by persecution of Quakers and the religious policies of the Governor of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant had formally banned all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. The signers indicated their "desire therefore in this case not to judge lest we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master." Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted. However, John Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. Bowne was arrested, jailed, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court exonerated Bowne.

Q1: What shows support for the separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century?
A1: The Flushing Remonstrance
Q2: What were the Remonstrance opposed to?
A2: religious persecution of any sort
Q3: When did a group of English citizens sign a document condemning hatred, war and bondage?
A3: December 27, 1657
Q4: Who were the signers of the document affronted by the persecution of?
A4: Quakers
Q5: What had Peter Stuyvesant formally banned all of other than the Dutch Reformed Church?
A5: religions
There were also opponents to the support of any established church even at the state level. In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, wrote against a state sanctioned religion, saying: "Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?" He also observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." Thomas Jefferson's influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights.

Q1: What did an established church, even at the state level, have?
A1: opponents
Q2: What was Issac Backus' profession?
A2: Baptist minister
Q3: What region did Isaac Backus come from?
A3: New England
Q4: When did Isaac Backus write against a state sanctioned religion?
A4: 1773
Q5: When was Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom enacted?
A5: 1786
The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution. The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Q1: Who was Roger Williams?
A1: Baptist theologian
Q2: What phrase did Roger Williams first use?
A2: "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"
Q3: What colony was Roger Williams the founder of?
A3: Rhode Island
Q4: When was the book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution published?
A4: 1644
Q5: Who used William's phrase as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch?
A5: Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson and James Madison's conceptions of separation have long been debated. Jefferson refused to issue Proclamations of Thanksgiving sent to him by Congress during his presidency, though he did issue a Thanksgiving and Prayer proclamation as Governor of Virginia. Madison issued four religious proclamations while President, but vetoed two bills on the grounds they violated the first amendment. On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attended religious services at the Capitol. Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body." After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion, but the House did not pass them.[citation needed]

Q1: Whose conceptions of separation have long been argued over?
A1: Jefferson and James Madison's
Q2: What did Jefferson refuse to issue, when it was sent to him by Congress during his presidency?
A2: Proclamations of Thanksgiving
Q3: Where did both Jefferson and Madison attend religious services?
A3: at the Capitol
Q4: How many religious proclamations did Madison issue while President?
A4: four
Q5: What is essential to the purity of both religion and civil government?
A5: practical distinction
Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history

Q1: What did Jefferson's opponents accuse him of wanting to do to Christianity?
A1: destruction
Q2: What did Jefferson encourage the separate sects at the University of Virginia to have of their own?
A2: preachers
Q3: How was the state banned from supporting a Professorship of Divinity?
A3: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Q4: What scheme did Jefferson apparently support when it came to University students?
A4: attend religious worship each morning
Q5: What does Mark David Hall think people focus on way too much?
A5: one Jeffersonian letter
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.

Q1: When did Jefferson's letter enter American jurisprudence?
A1: 1878
Q2: What was the case that used Jefferson's letter?
A2: Reynolds v. U.S.
Q3: What was the topic of Reynolds v. U.S.?
A3: Mormon polygamy
Q4: What was the court seeking, in using Jefferson's letter?
A4: legal definition for the word religion
Q5: What did the court rule outlawing polygamy was?
A5: constitutional
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:

Q1: What approach was not the only one taken in the 18th century?
A1: Jefferson and Madison's
Q2: What did Jefferson draft his Statute of Religious Freedom in opposition to?
A2: a bill
Q3: Who was the chief supporter of the bill that got Jefferson motivated to draft his Statute?
A3: Patrick Henry
Q4: What did Patrick Henry want to require Virginians to pay taxes to support?
A4: some denomination
Q5: What did the Constitution of Massachusetts express no one would be restrained from doing?
A5: worshipping God