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.
Related Stories
The NYT reports that Hillary Clinton spoke at the Brookings Institution's annual Saban Forum on Sunday and said that the Islamic State had become "the most effective recruiter in the world" and that the only solution is to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militants' websites, videos and encrypted communications. "We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS. We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector and work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that would both keep us safe and protect our privacy," said Clinton. "We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."
Top law enforcement officials and Silicon Valley leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, met on Friday to discuss topics related to support for terrorism on social media, as well as encryption:
Media were not invited to the Silicon Valley meeting. NPR talked with spokespeople from several companies who were attending, and got a copy of the email invite. It's a powerhouse list: White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey and National Intelligence Director James Clapper.
Apple CEO Tim Cook was there. Google, Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo were among the other companies that confirmed attendance.
The word "encryption" is mentioned in the invite. But companies who'd be very relevant to that conversation, like Cisco, were not invited. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said encryption was likely to come up at the meeting, but he described it as a "thornier" issue.
[...] A spokesperson from one company at the meeting, who didn't want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issues involved, said it's almost as if the administration wants a Madison Avenue ad campaign, only coming from tech geeks. Another criticized the event as a "bait and switch." Companies were told, more or less: "Hey, the government wants to brainstorm with the very best engineers about how technology can help fight terrorism," the second source said. It was similar in tone to the White House's call for tech support after the massive failure of Healthcare.gov.
But as the planning for Friday's meeting evolved, so did the tone. And in the 11th hour, companies fought to bring their lawyers, because it's clearly not just a technical conversation.
[More After the Break]
Twitter has been engaged in a game of whack-a-mole with accounts linked to "terrorism" since 2015, and has announced that it has suspended more than 125,000 accounts as part of its efforts to "combat" extremism:
In its ongoing effort to combat violent extremism, Twitter announced Friday that it has suspended more than 125,000 accounts since mid-2015 because of what it called their connections to terrorist or extremist groups, primarily ISIS.
NPR's Aarti Shahani reports that the company says there is no "magic algorithm" to identify terrorist content on the Internet, so they're forced to make make challenging judgment calls based on "very limited information and guidance." "The company says it's trying to strike the right balance between enforcement against tweets that break the rules, the needs of law enforcement, and free expression," Aarti reports.
In a statement, Twitter also said it has "increased the size of the teams that review reports," enabling it to respond more quickly to terrorism-related posts. "We have already seen results, including an increase in account suspensions and this type of activity shifting off of Twitter," the company said.
The statement comes just weeks after a woman sued Twitter, accusing the platform of giving voice to ISIS. Tamara Fields, a Florida woman whose husband Lloyd died in a November attack on a police training center in Amman, Jordan, said Twitter "knowingly let the militant Islamist group use its network to spread propaganda, raise money and attract recruits," according to the complaint. The suit also alleged that "ISIS members use Twitter to post instructional guidelines and promotional videos, referred to as 'mujatweets.'"
Related: Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Asks for "Spell-Checker" for Hate and Harassment
(Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:47AM
"Hey! It looks like you are writing a racist, misogynist rant! Would you like some help with that? I can throw chairs and suggest bad words!"
[My God, now we know what Ethanol's last job was before he got sent to the turkey farm. Gobble, gooble.]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:07AM
That is unfair. I thought he made it clear he *applied* at the turkey farm as a real natural and didn't wait to be sent there. Stick to the facts, please!
Also, who says he isn't still working for Google, field - testing their algorithms?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:37AM
Yes, of course, points taken. But on the other hand, you know what happened to the person responsible for Microsoft Bob? Some things cannot be removed by filters. The Horror, the horror! (Recommend to all Soylentils, read anything by Joseph Conrad. He was us before we were.)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:47PM
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:03PM
How can the very first post be redundant?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:53PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:22PM
How can the very first post be redundant?
Only if it says "First Post!" Or Eric Schmidt.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:10PM
Oh God! Please let Ethanol @ the Turkey Farm become a permanent meme!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:13PM
You are making a funny but these past few years I've noticed a VERY disturbing trend, all those looking to block speech? Yeah they only seem to want to block the speech of one side and have no problem with that speech if it is on the side they support.
For an example I use several new feeds that do not discriminate what site its coming from, I consider myself an adult and don't need to be "shielded" from the likes of a HuffyPo or Drudgey so I often go to sites on both sides of the aisle. Now the right will call you all kinds of names, stooge,idiot, dumbass, know what I've found they do NOT do? Keep you from talking, even if they do not like the talking you are doing. Now the left leaning sites, which coincidentally seems to be all the ones pushing for "hate blocks" and "trigger warnings" and the like? They'll block your ass in a heartbeat if you do not jump on board and guzzle that koolaid, seen it plenty times with entire conversations just disappearing on page refresh.
I'm sorry but free speech is frankly too damned important to let the 21st century equivalent of the moral majority dictate what can and cannot be said. With technology making us more and more isolated the web is quickly becoming the town square of the new century and I don't know about you but I really find this "babyproof the world so they only get our worldview" trend disturbing as hell. I've already seen several YouTubers erased from that site NOT for breaking any guidelines but simply because their content offended a political group, is this REALLY what we want the web to become? The sanitized world that the moral majority dreamed of in the 80s, only with a left instead of right slant?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:24PM
Confirmation bias.
You post against the consensus on one site and notice that you sometimes get deleted. You post with the consensus on another site and never get deleted. You don't see any deleted posts on that site because they've already been deleted.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:38PM
See here, for example: sounds just like the Reddit thread the other day, doesn't it? [freerepublic.com]
"Once censored for attacking FOX News for being watered down conservatism, and now twice censored for simply trying to link a source to some revealing info. Not up in arms yet, but feeling pushed... "
"Put a sock in it. This isn't your site. You don't get to do whatever you want. No one is abridging your freedom of speech."
Etc....
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:37AM
Uhhh nice strawman you got there, don't mind this match...WHOOSH!
Read my post again, did I say ANYTHING about me posting there? Anyone? Beuller? Nope afraid not I simply was watching the censor brigade as they happily erased dissenting opinions and again really not seeing that on the right leaning sites which just for the record (since the HuffyPo brigade treats everyone that isn't on board as "the dreaded other") I'm actually a fourth generation socialist, as in REAL socialism, not the "justice" kind. Oh don't get me wrong the right will call you all kinds of names, I've seen threads a good 50 posts deep just to tell one guy he is an idiot, but on the left sites? Yeah they just erase after calling the person an "ist" be it sexist, misogynist, racist, etc.
As somebody who is getting run out of the democratic tent no differently than fiscal conservatives were run out by Falwell and his bunch in the 80s? Believe me I wish it weren't so but its high time we accept we have our very own moral majority, a group that calls for censoring, banning, and treating adults as idiots too fucking stupid to be exposed to words or pictures that do not fit the narrative. Hell they even are as pro big brother as Falwell and his ilk were, only its "big mommy" that will protect you from the big scary world. Is Brin a card carrying republican? I don't know but you wanna bet he's democrat? Its sad that this is the shit we USED to nail the right wing for, but its not the right calling everyone who doesn't agree an "ist!" and moving to censor and screaming for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces"...nope sorry, that is the left doing that, though I really wish it weren't so.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:44PM
I couldn't agree more. People need to realize that freedom to say what the majority wants you to say is not freedom.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday December 10 2015, @05:39AM
SHUT Up! Security Guy! Freedom to say factually incorrect, incoherent, and Hairyfeet challenge thing is not freedom either! Just because you are a racist misogynist microphallic internet troll does not mean that you should not be shut up! This is not censorship! Is is mercy. Every time we can keep Hairyfeet from doing another one of his "the right never censored me" rants, the more we are saving him public embarrassment. Some people, like Donald Trump, no longer have family members that can step in when the crazy takes over and save their relations from going full right-wing right in front of God and everybody.
Besides, the majority does not want you to _say_ anything. They want you to shut up, since you are incapable of contributing to a rational discussion of policy. Have I make this adequately clear? OK, back to the kiddie table with you, along with Rick Santorum, Huckabea, and Chris Christy and Dick "Dick" Cheney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:50AM
The more they use it, the more people will be motivated to find ways around it.
Instead of using it to censor, they should use it speak back. Post a well known bigot trope, it will automatically post a previously written high-quality rebuttal to that standard trope. 99% of the things bigots say are cookie-cutter echo-chamber crap. After seeing the same shit over and over again no sane person even wants to engage any more. William F Buckley said it well, "Never debate with an amateur, they'll kill you every time. An amateur would just shout and say anything, and it makes rational argument impossible." So automate the responses and save yourself the stress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:18AM
That may be what Schmidt means when he writes "we should [...] help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:52AM
Fuck off, Jew. Jews are assholes, and non-Jews merely tolerate, but do not like, them.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:28AM
See? Who even has the energy to bother engaging with you anymore?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:51AM
OMG, who has all the time to feed these trolls?! [hands busy shoving food into trolls mouth]
The question was rhetorical right ;)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:15PM
Crap, who left the Turkey Farm gate open this time?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:17PM
Ethanol-fueled secretly votes Democrat.
_Racist_Troll_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:42AM
I'd expect their advertisement-frameworks should be well-suited for that, anyway. Instead of producing fertilizer- and weapons-adds along such posts they could just generate some links to educational sites with rebuttals to typical hate-claims.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:59AM
Wow. You mean Eric "fuck your privacy, it makes me less rich" Schmidt is now using his industry leverage to make automatic censorship tools to aid the government?
Yeah, not surprised, but what a total fucking asshat, may he get terrible herpes all over him. Seriously. What a piece of shit to even consider automatic censoring tools. What a disingenuous dickhead as well; His "spell checker" is a thinly veiled mass surveillance tool that is active, not passive, and now decides if it likes your speech enough to post it.
What a douchenozzle. "Do No Evil" my large white heinie.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:15PM
This. Everyone, this is gospel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:12PM
i hate that stupid bastard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:23AM
Is anyone stupid enough to believe anyone promoting this evil crap has the slightest concern about ISIS? This is all about silencing the Enemies of the State and they ain't worried about goat humpers in Syria posting murder selfies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:21PM
Why the fuck would anyone want to censor ISIS supporters?
That's literally the opposite of intelligence. NSA does a "full take" on traffic. You need ISIS with a Facebook page and Twitter account so that idiots can "like" and follow them, and the FBI can then swoop in pretending to be extremists and entrap them with terror plots.
"Here, hold this detonator. Push the button and the evil wester excess will be eliminated!" [CLICK] "Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect 42 virgins."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:24AM
Didn't Hitler appeal to the German people the same way? German people in debt to the banking elite? If I understood the history right, masses of German people were in debt, and Hitler offered them a way out of it by a form of ... I guess we would call it "eminent domain". The existing owners were not going down without a fight, so Hitler provided one.
The French had the same problem earlier and had to do the same.
A distressed public is politically unstable. When they have nothing left to lose, other leaders who give the illusion they will take better care of them will take their allegiance.
Although some of us think its great most of us are in debt up to our necks, all this indebtedness has a way of explosively releasing itself.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:10AM
Germany itself was saddled with huge war reparation payments, and had huge portions of its industry carted off by just about everybody as reparations. If the citizens were in debt it was probably from buying and importing replacement kit to get their farms and industry back together.
Hitler offered more in the way of repaired pride after the humiliating terms of surrender they were forced to suffer at the end of the war. He defied the allies and started building an army and navy playing fast and loose armistice terms, because he knew he could get away with it.
What ever the reason, the German people did lap it up.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:08AM
And from what I've learnt of history, this tells me that others will lap up the modern equivalents too.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:14PM
Yeah I can't remember which leader it was (maybe Hoover) but when looking at how nasty the Treaty of Versailles was said along the lines of "All we have done is buy 20 years" which was almost exactly right. I think that is why we didn't go out of our way to humiliate Japan after the war (I remember my great uncle saying he had to order all his men to remove the emperor's seal from all war booty as it was seen as a great humiliation) because we didn't want to make the same mistakes that was done in 1919.
As for why they lapped it up? My grandfather was in the trenches in Europe in WWII and they used to listen to Hitler on the radio. He said even though he didn't speak a lick of German at the right moments you wanted to go "sieg heil!" because he had this way of building a cadence that made you want to join in. He said they'd laugh at propaganda like Axis Sally but every time Hitler was on the troops would get a sour look, as they knew he could build the kind of cult of personality with his charisma that would keep the war going to the bitter end.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:47AM
Because it's so much easier and cheaper to break winds... errr... I mean... use propaganda and censorship than it is to "re-affect" those young people and give them a constructive sense of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:17PM
Isn't trump doing that now? He is only repeating what he hears. He is stating things that appeal to the disaffected, disallusioned, ignorant and fearful people and getting great results, just like similar demagogues of the past.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:25PM
The recipe for losing a republic and gaining a tyranny hasn't changed much in thousands of years. When a large number of people perceive themselves as poor and others as rich, you will end up with social unrest that can manifest as class struggle, racial hatred, an Arab Spring, a riot, a civil war -- at the bottom of all of them is money.
Today's PEGIDA movement in Germany is strong only in the East, where the people don't feel that they got equal treatment in unification with the West and blame their higher unemployment and lower standard of living on a Berlin that doesn't care about them -- but suddenly does care about importing foreigners. The FN in France capitalizes on the crumbling French economy. Trump rails against Mexicans, Muslims, anyone vaguely foreign, since citizens feel that they're on the losing end of a deal now being offered to foreigners. Same story. It's about money in the end.
Fix the economy and reduce inequality between the rich and the poor, and populism will not be a problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:48AM
They make great clients. And sucker in tons of new warm bodies to spy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:31AM
Are not the solution here.
There always have been and always will be murderous scumbags, obnoxious jerks and bile spewing morons (collectively, fuckheads).
Generally, they get sorted out in the wash and reasonable ideas prevail. The difficulty is that this sometimes takes a while.
Curtailing everyone's freedoms to limit the ability of the fuckheads to spread their venomous messages is short-sighted, dangerous and ill-advised, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:07PM
Limitations On Speech Are not the solution here.
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. nobody has suggested that they be banned from the internet or thrown in jail, really they are looking for a simpler way to enforce the existing TOS agreement. you can still make your own hate site, you just can't make it on facebook.
(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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:12AM
Fighting the symptoms is always fun. It doesn't cure the desease, but who cares?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:51AM
If your entire business model is built on fighting the symptoms, not curing the disease is pretty much your #1 priority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:01PM
> Fighting the symptoms is always fun. It doesn't cure the desease, but who cares?
What are you talking about? Fighting the symptoms is very effective at letting the body heal itself. When I get a cold, it usually takes weeks for me to recover and I usually get secondary infections like pink-eye. Once I even got pneumonia. When I take sudafed I've never had a secondary infection and I'm good in about 5 days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:16AM
Of course, you're good. Not really healed, but who cares about that, and immunity weakining, and accumulation effects? "I can't see it immediately, so it doesn't exist at all!"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:51AM
But it should be...
I still remember a time in when it was so (Google wasn't there)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Subsentient on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:24AM
So I am predicting some "America tramples civil rights!" comments from the political vibe that caused this. Let me remind you that in many countries generally considered as 'free', like the UK, anti-Muslim speech can get you thrown in jail, and in Germany, any support for Nazis can net you the same. It doesn't matter if it's satire. The joke is your freedom. In the USA, we can own guns, say pretty much whatever the fuck we want (except for some unconstitutional local laws like NYC with firearms), fart on our hands and smell it in public, and summon the undead gerbil swarm.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:25PM
fart on our hands and smell it in public
Ah yes, the little known 1¼th Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of fart-smelling, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @01:30PM
And those who seek power in the US eye Europe's control of speech with desirous envy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:01PM
Our founders and courts WROTE those rules exactly because of the behavior I think you are mocking (not clear). It is a very easily abused behavior. Which is why the gov does not get the right to do that.
Lets say you dislike candidate X. You show your contempt for him by showing up and picketing him. However candidate X is just running for re-election. So the police decide to make an example out of you. They tear your life apart. Use every little bit of utterance you have ever said and committed to paper and or the internet. Those bits of speech are deemed 'illegal' so you are tossed in jail (you scum you). They maybe get a warrant to do so with it. Because now they have 'probable cause' to come in and seize your assets and anything you have done.
Dont think so? This is *exactly* how the elite in Europe treated people. We enshrined those rules because of that abuse of power. It is a very effective way to make sure you 'win' an election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:28PM
>like the UK, anti-Muslim speech can get you thrown in jail
In the US it makes you the GOP front runner. Murica!
And obligatory xkcd while I'm at it https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by number6 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:19AM
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within
that spectrum...."
-- Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday December 09 2015, @01:34PM
Did Eric Schmidt just appoint himself head of Mintrue? [wikipedia.org] How much longer will it take before people stop trying to leverage the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis [wikipedia.org] to fix people's opinions by proscribing inappropriate language?
The problem isn't the words themselves, it's the attitudes and feelings behind them. We need to start focusing on being emotionally correct [ted.com] instead of politically correct, it would go a long way to improving the dialog everywhere.
Issues of constitutionality in the U.S. aside, [sarcasm] there's no way this could ever be used for evil...[\sarcasm]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday December 09 2015, @01:55PM
Yeah, and jasassin luser of soylentnews asks for a fucking button in gmail to allow me to forward multiple emails. Fuck you Google.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:02PM
Great. The list of seven dirty words set forth by Bruce and Carlin some forty years ago as to harmful for polity society are still alive. Now they'll just add a few more. I guess that p*ss c*nt Schmidt can just come over and s*ck the sh*t of my c*ck. Instead of seven dirty words you can't say on television I recon it will just spiral into 7000 words you can't type on the internet. Motherf*ckers ...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:26PM
Who needs that? You are self-censoring.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:36PM
See it already started, so used to filters not letting words like that true I'm already self-censoring. Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits. Guess it worked here ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:24PM
There's a difference between default censorship and censorship by a private entity hoping to keep his or her forum clean. It also cuts down on just how vulgar the spambots can get.
Now, for that language you spouted, I'd say go fuck your mother, but chances are she's old and you're adopted.
Still, I much prefer the method in Wasteland 2 employed by the Mannerites. Be polite, but still be mean.
Of course, I am not sure what mature and immature language means. Saying words like fuck and cunt sure refer to adult things but many people refer to the use of such words as immature. Who gets to decide these things, I want to know, and how do I get placed into such a position of authority?
In 1984, it is demonstrated that if one controls the language, one controls the expression of thought, and through that one controls the ability to think. The less words that are known and used, the less they can be used in a manner alarming to the powers that be. Before long, the animals are easy to control if they are unable to effectively communicate to each other. Just like cattle.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Gravis on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:01PM
i do not think that government censorship is good idea but i'm not against this idea for social media sites because they are privately owned. every social media site has a Terms Of Service that you already agree to abide by and what something like this could do is actually make that agreement stick. if you don't want service XYZ to filter your messages then it's simple enough to just use a different site or even build your own damn site.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zugedneb on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:31PM
...then, came the hate...
any topic chosen looks the same:
gaming - in the beginning, there were people who played games.
NOW: woman, feminists, antiracists, muslims, jews, mothers and priests came, and demanded to be respected for WHO they are.
internet in general: in the beginning there were sites and forums. you googled, or in the early days yahood or gophered for some shit, found it, read it and was happy.
NOW: woman, feminists, antiracists, muslims, jews, mothers and priests came, and demanded to be respected for WHO they are.
university: I enrolled 96... there was some drinking, party and study... sure there were some problems, but what the hell... it is a fukcing WARZONE now...
NOW: woman, feminists, antiracists, muslims, jews, mothers and priests came, and demanded to be respected for WHO they are.
EVERY fucking place is a warzone, because there are a lot of human beings that do not know the proper niche carved out for them in life, and want a piece of the others land...
THE WORST EXAMPLE OF THEM ALL: I wanted to become a bit more cultural, so I went to a salsa course. Of course, the new guys asked the teachers and those who tended to go out a lot where the good places are.
It came into the light, that all the places have some problems with haters: the people who go out and just sit, drink and watch the dancers and never dance themselves. As I understood, they might not contribute to a good mood...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:07PM
No, it is not your job to be the policeman of speech, Mr. Schmidt, nor is it your right or privilege to ask that anyone else should.
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.
Yes, but we're well agreed that the United States Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force have excellent lobbying with congress. OH, you meant ISIS.... See how one person's terrorist becomes another person's freedom fighter?
Now I'm not saying the U.S. military is equal to ISIS by any means - I have served my country when I was young and stupid. But now I'm old enough to realize bridging liberty FOR ANY REASON should be undertaken with only the utmost fear and trembling because there is no other alternative. And we ain't anywhere near there with ISIS yet.
But, Mr. Schimidt, you could start by removing all references to Google from your search engine. Then I'll believe you don't want to be evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:12AM
Even if i supported "today's blockage" ( which i dont, i believe in freedom of speech ) its a dangerous president. Today its 'terror words', tomorrow its dissident speech, mandated by the government " well, you proved you can do it.. now we order you to "
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:24PM
It might even be a dangerous precedent!
(Score: 1) by BrockDockdale on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:39AM
Is it a "sense of belonging" that's lacking for young people, or do they first need an outlet for how pissed-off they are at YOU, the leaders who betrayed them over and over and never gave a shit?
Well anyway, let's say ISIS really is "giving [young people] a sense of belonging and direction that they are not getting anywhere else." In that case there are two ways to respond: