SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for guy_
Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies have been given an ultimatum by the European Union: rid your platforms of hate speech or face legal consequences.
European regulators have been pushing social media firms to remove racist and violent posts from their platforms in a timely manner for years. Their patience is running out.
Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Google have all pledged to do more. In May 2016, they promised to review a majority of hate speech flagged by users within 24 hours and to remove any illegal content.
But the European Commission, EU's top regulator, said Thursday they are still failing to act fast enough. It said it would pass laws allowing the EU to impose punishments on companies that fail to act.
"The situation is not sustainable: in more than 28% of cases, it takes more than one week for online platforms to take down illegal content," said Mariya Gabriel, the EU's top official in charge of the digital economy and society.
The Commission said it will consider implementing new laws to tackle the problem if the online platforms fail to "take swift action over the coming months."
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/technology/hate-speech-facebook-twitter-europe/index.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @06:47PM (23 children)
But they're also subject to unconstitutional garbage in the US, such as NSLs. I guess the US can perhaps still claim to be the country that respects free speech the most, but there really is no winning here. What country is not a hopeless authoritarian shithole?
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Friday September 29 2017, @07:00PM (20 children)
What country is not a hopeless authoritarian shithole?
None of them. That is why only a technical solution can solve this social problem of the authoritarian populace that supports censorship.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @08:06PM (17 children)
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @08:23PM (9 children)
And what did the Pilgrims do after they established themselves in Massachusetts?
They made their religion the official one and if you didn't like it... well... you are free to leave...
(Oh, the irony! Just ask Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island.)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @10:00PM (8 children)
So? They built a place and set the rules for that place. If you didn't like 'em, you could mosey on off somewhere else. What's wrong with that?
(Score: 3, Touché) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday September 29 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)
Are you saying this doesn't also apply to Europe?
Or were you being sarcastic?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @10:26PM
It applies to everyone, everywhere, the Lockean principles which state that when someone mixes their labor with an unclaimed resource, such a process is "ownership". Facebook and Twitter are private companies - if they want a presence in someone else's place, they need to follow the rules set forth by the owner.
I'm a big fan of freedom and exclusive self-ownership, but there's barely one place on Earth where that claim is even laughably made. It ain't in Europe. Here's hoping that the people of Europe free themselves soon, though!
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday September 29 2017, @10:21PM (3 children)
What's wrong with that is that the number of reasonably accessible locations is limited. Good luck finding a "somewhere else" that you can actually get to and inhabit that isn't already full of people enforcing their own set of stupid laws.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @10:38PM (2 children)
That's definitely a problem today. Arguably wasn't an unsolvable problem for the Pilgrims.
My argument for today is: find a place that claims to be made and run by free people, and then hold them to that claim. The USA's Constitution claims to have authority by way of an enumerated list of powers delegated to it by individual people. People in a group have no more authority than does a single individual: if I can't take 50% of my neighbor's income myself, neither can I delegate that ability to the IRS. Therefore US governments have no more authority than I as an individual do.
Lying governments don't like to be called out, though. They've been busy murdering [youtube.com] the peaceful [youtube.com] free [youtube.com] folk [youtube.com] infesting the USA for some time now. The living free folk have been watching the murders for decades, patiently observed that the "justice system" provides none of its namesake, and have adjusted out mindsets accordingly. There are going to be more government murders of free folk. But free folk will be alive after the death of the criminal US governments.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday September 29 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)
"... governments have no more authority than I as an individual do."
Sure they do. You can in most likelihood only shot one person at a time.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @12:36AM
Power is quite different from authority. A robber with a gun has power to rob, but no authority to rob.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @11:34PM
--Robert A Heinlein
Exactly! Let's rev up that Libby-Sheffield drive and make like a preacher (and get the flock outa here!!
Oh, wait...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:43AM
The rules say I'm not allowed to leave. The rules everywhere else say I'm not allowed to enter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @08:30PM (6 children)
We'll end up with authoritarian captains and space cults in space. Bonus if the female to male ratio is around 10:1. Extra bonus for the Musky Martian Mating Mission with hot South African cum.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @02:36AM (5 children)
Authoritarian captains - yes. It has long been recognized that there can only be one captain aboard a ship. One person is in charge, no more, no less. People generally submit to that authority because it makes sense. Anything else is suicidal.
Now, looking at the larger ships - ships of state - authority is necessary. Most people submit to that authority. Some of us fringe lunatics question that authority, and some of you further out on the fringes work hard to subvert authority. But, authority is a necessary fact of life. How in the hell are you going to have a postal system, if no one has the authority to pick it up, sort it, ship it, sort it again, then deliver it? Where are the roads and highways going to come from, if no one has authority over them? You, an individual, can't just decide that you want a road across Farmer Jone's pasture. Someone with authority has to make such a decision, then make some sort of agreement and restitution with Farmer Jones before thousands of people per day can drive through his pasture land.
How about, instead of simply rejecting authority, you learn why humans need authority systems, and how they work, and how they SHOULD work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:13AM (4 children)
Where does said authority come from? I'll pick road-making authority for simplicity's sake.
The vast majority of human history declares that authority comes from power, e.g. "might makes right". Okay, that's one practical answer as to where authority comes from: "obey me or I kill you".
What about authority in a place such as the USA, which only claims to have authority by way of delegation from individuals? If I don't have authority myself as a lone person, I can't delegate that to anyone else. Likewise, if I stir up a mob, we have no more authority than just one of us alone do. Where then is the source of the authority (NOT power, which is force, the same thing an armed robber uses) for a US government to take your land (with or without paying you for it) to build a road on if you do not wish to voluntarily sell?
(Yes, I do have an answer for your blockquoted question...)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @02:27PM (3 children)
Indirectly, it comes from the constitution of the United States, for each level of government below the federal government. And, of course, for the federal government, such authority comes directly from the constitution. For each of the states, said authority comes directly from their constitutions. For counties, parishes, and cities and towns, such authority derives from their charters, terms of corporation, or such other instrument as established that municipality - back up of course by both the state constitution, as well as the US constitution.
Specifically, if the Feds want a six lane highway across farmer Jones' pasture, they cite "eminent domain", offer some recompense for farmer Jones' land (presumably some fraction of the land's actual value, anywhere from 1% up to 150%) and start building.
And, it's at least reasonable well justified by the fact that we have a representative system of government. A pure democracy amounts to mob rule, but we don't run a democracy here - it's merely a democratic method of electing our representatives. If you wish to get deeper into the source of authority - well - we happen to live in a republic. The republic pretty much claims authority to do any damned thing it wants to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:53PM (2 children)
So does a crazy mugger. It does not take much analysis to determine that the claims to authority are not based in reality.
How was the US Constitution, the source of authority for the ~2.5+ trillion dollar-consuming monster of a federal government, created? By elected delegated at the Philadelphia Convention. What authority did said delegates have? No more than you or I do as a single individual. If I myself have no authority to seize your house, I therefore cannot delegate that seizure to anyone else, regardless of the method I use for the delegation. If I do not have the authority myself to take something of yours, I cannot suddenly obtain that authority by whipping up a mob of people to "vote" myself that authority. Doing so is akin to BLM "voting" themselves authority to break, steal, and burn other folks' stuff. If you believe the US Constitution grants government the authority to take what someone is not willing to sell, please cite the chain of delegation of such authority to me, starting from its original source, "we the people", starting at the single individual level.
Consent is related here as well, as the difference between lovemaking and rape is consent. If someone consents to a horrible thing, no crime is committed. However, if someone does not consent, authority becomes critically important. An armed robber may not consent to being shot, but if the robber exceeded his authority by trying to commit a robbery, the defender has authority to defend himself even if that means using lethal force against his attacker. Consent is also specific to each individual human, and can be revoked at any time for any or no reason. (If consent CANNOT be revoked at any time, that'll make for some interesting discussions in regards to "date rape" and similar cases where consent may have been obtained at some point, but was revoked later, and the aggressor forced sex on the person who revoked consent.) Since authority is so critical in the absence of consent, it is important to be able to trace claimed authority back to its source to determine its validity.
Power is much different from authority, and it is principle by which muggers as well as today's governments operate. "Do what we say, or we'll kill you."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:58PM (1 child)
I'm tired, and headed to bed. But, I'll give your question as much asnwer as my foggy brain can come up with . . .
Government - any government - after it actually becomes a government - becomes almost something like a living thing. It grows, it assumes ever more power, and ever more character. The people under that government approve of that government's growth, either tacitly or explicitly. Tacit approval is given if no one rebels against that government, despite any papers, blogs, books, or whatever. All governments will have their fringe loonies who are clamoring for rebellion, but until a critical mass is reached, it's just so much hot air.
If the masses consent to live under US government that includes 24/7 surveillance of all residents - then we have tacitly approved of the government's assumption of both authority and power. In point of fact, we have done precisely that. The outrage and uproar over NSA suveillance of all electronic communications is sadly missing.
Getting back on track, the US government exercised eminnent domain a few times prior to the establishment of the Interstate Highway System. But, the interstates were the broadest, and in some cases, the most forceful invocation of Eminent Domain. And, we accepted it. We, the American people, have accepted the fact that the US government can kick us out of our homes, and use our land for whatever purposes it deems appropriate.
You, or I, may fight an individual case against the government, and we may even win that individual case - but the authority has been asserted, and accepted.
The authority is a fait accompli. There's no changing that now, it's history. At best, we might fight to establish that government must pay double, triple, or quadruple the market value, if/when it exercises eminent domain. No one should be booted out of their homes, and paid pennies on the dollar - instead they should be compensated in full, PLUS something for their inconvenience.
But, when government needs something, it's going to get that something. Our parents and grandparents accepted the idea, so it's law now.
Collectively, "we the people" have much more authority and power than any of us "people". That is a fact of life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:44PM
I could certainly agree with the statement 'collectively, a large group of people have much more power than any of us individual "people". That is a fact of life.' I also appreciate your willingness to engage on this subject, sleepy or not. =)
What I completely disagree with is the notion that a group of people possess more and greater authority than a single person all by himself does. Authority is justification to use power. Power is mere force. Power is a very useful tool, and like most tools, can be misused to inflict great harm.
What is the magic number that turns a mob into "We the People"? If I understand your post correctly, your answer appears to be "just enough to secure an overthrowing of government", which seems to suggest that you have said that "the ends justify the means". (I don't disagree that this is so from a historical perspective, for after all, "if it succeeds, none dare call it treason".)
Do you see or acknowledge a distinction between power and authority? Do you actually assert that "the ends justify the means"? I'm willing to continue this discussion if you're willing to clarify or confirm those points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @10:05PM (1 child)
Oh really? And what will you do when your technical solution, the ONLY solution as you claim, is banned by said authoritarians? From your past posts, YOU will do nothing, save cower in the corner, only peeking out of your heavily-drawn windows in the hopes of catching a glimpse of a neighbor to rat on.
There are more solutions than technical ones (which do have great merit, obviously), and some of those "non-technical" solutions will be necessary to grasp to win against tyranny by men with steel in their spines.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @10:48PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 29 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
The Vatican: an Authoritarian Shithole, but they export lots of Hope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @10:08AM
Also lots of despair.