SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google's chairman Eric Schmidt has written an op-ed to The New York Times calling for tools to disrupt speech on social media:
Technology companies should work on tools to disrupt terrorism - such as creating a hate speech "spell-checker" - Google's chairman Eric Schmidt has said. Writing in The New York Times, Mr Schmidt said using technology to automatically filter-out extremist material would "de-escalate tensions on social media" and "remove videos before they spread".
His essay comes as presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton again called on Silicon Valley to help tackle terrorism, specifically seeking tools to combat the so-called Islamic State. "We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS," she said during a speech in Washington DC.
From the NYT editorial:
In Myanmar, connectivity fans the flames of violence against the Rohingya, the minority Muslim population. In Russia, farms of online trolls systematically harass democratic voices and spread false information on the Internet and on social media. And in the Middle East, terrorists use social media to recruit new members. In particular, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has harnessed social media to appeal to disaffected young people, giving them a sense of belonging and direction that they are not getting anywhere else. The militants' propaganda videos are high on style and production value. They're slick and marketable. In short, they are deluding some people to believe that living a life fueled by hatred and violence is actually ... cool.
This is where our own relationship with the Internet, and with technology, must be examined more closely. The Internet is not just a series of tubes transmitting information from place to place, terminal to terminal, without regard for those typing on their keyboards or reading on their screens. The people who use any technology are the ones who need to define its role in society. Technology doesn't work on its own, after all. It's just a tool. We are the ones who harness its power.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:11PM
this isn't a limitation on speech, it's the limitation on your ability to use site XYZ as your personal megaphone. social media is a bunch of privately owned sites, not public resources.
Regardless of location or ownership, limitations on speech is a poor idea, IMHO. That's a general statement of principle rather than an appeal to authority (e.g., freedom of expression guarantees, etc.).
I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do with their property, nor am I advocating for public intervention into private spaces.
At the same time, whether we like it or not, Facebook, Twitter and other "social media" environments provide a quasi-public commons. What's more, no one has to read or interact with those whose message they find objectionable either.
From a (U.S.) legal standpoint, the U.S. Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] has, under certain circumstances, held that private spaces may be required to allow free speech in areas "held open to the public."
The decision also sparked speculation that this precedent could be applied online [delawarevalleylawyer.com] [PDF, cf. Page 18].
Whether or not that happens is an open question. Given the current hysterical climate, it seems unlikely that actions that would increase liberty will be taken -- in fact, just the opposite is likely. More's the pity.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:53PM
From a (U.S.) legal standpoint, the U.S. Supreme Court has, under certain circumstances, held that private spaces may be required to allow free speech in areas "held open to the public."
sites like facebook are not open to the public, you have to register to see almost anything. also, your legal standpoint isn't going to hold water on a global scale.
(Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:02PM
You really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:24AM
How is this modded troll?
I said:
You said:
Those points, while they are fairly reasonable and quite possibly even true, ignore the main point that I made. Perhaps you didn't understand (hence my comment about reading comprehension), so I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand:
Limited speech bad. Am not against private property rights. Has been larger talk-talk in world for a long time. Most likely nothing will change besides our liberties being further curtailed by the government.
Get it now?
No trolling here. Just calling you on either your poor reading comprehension or your deliberate obtuseness. I imagine it's the latter, but I was being charitable by calling it the former.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr