SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We have heard the rumblings, now it comes.... the Code of Conduct for social media along with the banhammer.
From Bloomberg we get this warning:
U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.
Of course terrorists are defined down to "unambiguous hate speech that they said promoted racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism" before the short article ends.
Buckle up folks, the ride is is about to get bumpy.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 98 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:50AM
This seems like the sort of faux pas that will open the door for new social media sites, operating systems, and network services companies.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:02AM
Oh no, that's specifically to be addressed through the UN since it is a worldwide problem.
You can see the preliminary reports. It's on my "C" drive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:53AM
They are already doing that for coastal water laws. Same place they expanded it to the current 200 mile limit with coastal shelf extensions, before making the rules global.
The UN is just the superpowers way of fucking us all over by giving the little guy a shortsighted advantage in order to take a bigger share of the pie for themselves in the long term.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:59AM
I will just leave this here.
Cyber Violence Against Women [unwomen.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:43PM
Fails in the link title. "Cyber Violence" is a contradiction in terms unless you are controlling an armed drone over the Internet or some shit like that, that also kinda breaks the language since there ain't nothing 'Cyber' about a Hellfire missile dropping outta the sky.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:53PM
Not a fail when "Tech Giants Vow To Tackle Online Hate Speech". Or you thought it was all about nigger and faggot? This is UN we are talking about.
Online Attacks On Women To Be Treated As Violence: Maneka Gandhi to NDTV [ndtv.com] - Here is a sample of what's coming.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:06PM
Just getting to the root and attacking the language and rejecting their premise. Everything Progs do not like is now violence. Look at one the wrong way and they are 'triggered' and running off to their 'safe space' to file charges against you for your violent assault against them. Which would just be funny if the police didn't more often that not actually show up on your doorstep.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjwt on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:54AM
Its good to see more sanctioned action that is fairly defined to be fully inclusive of helping 99%+ of the population... good thing so few people are Caucasian straight and non-jewish.. it would be a sham if groups like that where of any significant proportion of the population and totally ignored by the implantation of anti hate speech rules.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:22AM
The easy solution will be for a startup to create a hate-speech filter api, that everybody else can use [you pass in a message/posting/whatever, and it returns a ok/not ok]. Naturally, the MPAA, RIAA, Facebook, Google and the US gov't will all have to work together to create the algorithm used.
And no, you can't see it, and complaints will be handled by the same department handling requests to be removed from the no-fly list, since they have a bunch of free time after creating their auto-responder "We have received your request and are evaluating it. We cannot inform you of the results of the evaluation because we don't want to tell you."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:07AM
Because this has worked just swimmingly every single time we've ever tried it before in the history of humanity!
...you know, we all know that saying about "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." The other, unspoken half of this is "those who remember it are a small minority and are doomed to be dragged kicking and screaming through history a second time."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:11AM
What legislation? This is a collection of private companies making a promise, the government is not involved.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:33AM
Where have you been over the last 30 years? Big companies *are* government now, by the golden rule ("he who has the gold makes the rules").
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jiro on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:36AM
"The European Union counts as a government, and this amounts to "media companies had better obey because otherwise hate speech laws can be used against them". When the government "asks" you to do something it's rarely voluntary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:12AM
> The European Union counts as a government,
Barely. The EU can neither create nor enforce any laws.
It is up to the member states to actually pass any local laws that may or may not be inline with EU guidelines.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:24AM
> Barely. The EU can neither create nor enforce any laws.
I had to look it up, to my embarrassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Legal_system [wikipedia.org]
> Acts
>
> The main legal acts of the EU come in three forms: regulations, directives, and decisions. Regulations become law in all member states the moment they come into force, without the requirement for any
> implementing measures,[ and automatically override conflicting domestic provisions.[ Directives require member states to achieve a certain result while leaving them discretion as to how to achieve the result.
> The details of how they are to be implemented are left to member states.[m] When the time limit for implementing directives passes, they may, under certain conditions, have direct effect in national law against
> member states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:55AM
This is a collection of private companies making a promise, the government is not involved.
AHAHAHAHAHAH! hahaha... ha...haaha...
the government is not involved
Oh wait, you're serious! HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHTAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHTAH!
[CARRIER DROPPED]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:31AM
The government promised to arrest Facebook's executives [archive.is] if they fail to comply, and sent a team of "activist" thugs to smash up Facebook's office [archive.is], but the government is not involved!
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:49AM
> Because this has worked just swimmingly every single time we've ever tried it before in the history of humanity!
Private corps regulating speech on their property is pretty much a constant throughout the history of humanity.
The article literally said that this something the companies are doing beyond the requirements of any national laws.
You do support property rights, don't you?
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:53AM
Your comment reminds me of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980):
—https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74 [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:18PM
Yes, California is the one state in the union where shopping malls do not have 100% control over the speech on their own property.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:03PM
That ruling is indeed specific to California.
Facebook headquarters is in Menlo Park, California.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Facebook-HQ/166793820034304 [facebook.com]
Google headquarters is in Mountain View, California.
https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:42PM
Depends on how you define "property". The road going into town might be considered "property". In fact, all of that "property" actually belongs to individual people. The gubbermint came along, and told everyone that a road was going through - move anything you don't want paved over. Real property, just taken over by gubbermint, for my convenience, and yours, and his, and hers . . .
I will insist that "the internet" isn't their property. I have little to no respect for TOS, EULA, or much of anything else. I pay my fees, I use the tubes. Fek Microsoft, Facebook, and every other bunch of asshats who feel responsible for "disciplining" me.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:09AM
Hate speech is bad for business. So is anti-gay and anti-Muslim and anti-Jew.
That's not intended to be sarcastic or ironic... that's the way it is. A forum that's a cesspool of hate turns people away, people that could be customers, and better customers than most of the trolls.
Main Street businessman were always among the most enlightened in the Deep South, because they counted on business from black folks as well as whites.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jiro on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:44AM
There's a difference between actual hate speech, which can be bad for some (but not all) businesses, and what Europeans call "hate speech", which is often criticism of immigrants or of Islam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:33AM
Say something bad about Israel in USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:24AM
You'll get some people calling you an anti-semite. Which is probably true in your case. But it's certainly NOT illegal, and often not censored depending on where you're posting.
On the other side, Angela Merkel directly ordered Zuckerberg (caught on camera BTW) to silence anyone who doesn't like importing and paying for a million Muslims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:58AM
Not to diminish your statement regarding Merkel, but you can get COINTELPRO tortured for saying shit about Israel in the USA, so, fuck off.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:46AM
It's as good as censorship. It's character assassination, shunning, and other targeted attempts to take you down. Look at what happened to Walt and Mearsheimer when they wrote their paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy [uchicago.edu]." The paper's premise was that the United States has no real strategic interest in Israel, not as a major trading partner, not as a supplier of strategically important commodities or products, etc. Now, Walt and Mearsheimer are the fathers of modern International Relations, but they were decried as anti-semites for their paper and smeared in a thousand ways, despite it having been very well researched and based on rock-solid facts.
Look at what happened to Jimmy Carter after his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid [wikipedia.org]." Again, he was denigrated as an anti-semite and smeared in a thousand ways, despite the fact he's done more for Israel's security in the last 70 years through his Camp David Accords.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:22AM
Fucking Israel; I don't care either way about religion, but picking up a whole country and dumping it on top of Montana is just an arse of a thing to do
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:07PM
You mean picking up the country that the Jews didn't have before Israel existed?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:45AM
That is why Voat has failed to go anywhere. It got famous for all the people fleeing reddit's hate-speech policy. And guess what happened? It became a cesspool and no normal people want to swim in that, so its pretty much stuck with a toxic community.
> Main Street businessman were always among the most enlightened in the Deep South, because they counted on business from black folks as well as whites.
Pretty low bar that was.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:02AM
The problem with defending freedom of expression is you spend most of your time defending scoundrels. I can't stand bigotry but when I defend a bigot's right to speak *in principle* people confuse that for supporting the content of their message. Or when I attack someone's ideas, that criticism is transferred in the minds of spectators to the person themselves, making me appear to be the bigot.
This is one of the reasons free expression is such a fragile and precious thing. It's hard to get and easy to lose; most people won't even notice it's slipping away and a disturbing amount can easily be made to feel they're better off without it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:21AM
That is not what it happened but it has become a meme to argue from your POV and get the reply you have gotten. What really happens and happened is that most people don't like to be making final decisions on the internet as most people run to reddit to relax from the stressful life where they have to make uncomfortable decisions. That is the majority. They will argue all day long but won't do anything as their real life is unaffected by most of what they are so passionate bout online. These people are malleable and they stick with majority. And majority was already on reddit. That is why single cause forks of community don't survive. It has got nothing to do with 'cesspool'. If tomorrow reddit decides everyone who mentions linux will be banned, any resulting fork will also not survive. Even in case of slashdot, multiple fuckups for multiple years, multiple ownership and policy changes didn't make SN. It was when CmdrTaco wrote that slashdot is not his anymore, when old timers got convinced there is no hope and an alternative is needed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:06AM
Partly right with the Voat migration. I don't think anything you said is incorrect, but the Voat migration stopped when the person being blamed for all the censorship and crap that was going on on Reddit (Ellen Pao) was let go / resigned. In hindsight she was really just a scapegoat. She did have some hand in the events (firing a really well liked community manager) that lead to mass protests (major subs that went private) and the initial migration to Voat, but she wasn't the sole provocateur, she was just the face of the shitty decisions that were being made.
Also Voat wasn't really equipped to handle the massive amount of traffic they started getting. There were days I'd go to Voat several times a day (I just keep tabs open) and the whole day was spent refreshing the "be patient" message, I eventually just stopped going. Since things on Reddit more or less went back to normal after Pao left, there was no reason to keep going to Voat to see if they'd upgraded their servers.
I also agree with you AC was full of it. I didn't see any "hate speech" going on on Voat, no more so than what I see on Reddit or any other internet forum.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:14PM
Voat was DDOSed during the Reddit troubles and gained a reputation as that broken site that couldn't scale to support a migration. That's why it failed to gain traction, and then nobody used it because nobody was using it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:58PM
Of course the most motivated users, i.e. the banned, migrate first to a new platform. Why do you think Tor is also a cesspit? They think they can swap pedo pics without being busted and those guys were instantly the early adopters. Illegal drugs were the mainstay of Silk Road. Hell, for the first decade the majority of Internet traffic was porn and 'piracy.' Then it became spam and now at last the majority of traffic is 'legitimate' content but it is Netflix. Wow, what an improvement, can we get the pirates and porn back?
The forking problem is the network effect in reverse. Until reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. manage to piss off a critical mass a fork will languish. But once a critical mass moves and begins a new network effect it will cascade quickly. See MySpace.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:57AM
On what street was the Woolworth's in Greensboro, North Carolina?
http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/freedom-struggle-2.html [si.edu]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:08PM
132 South Elm Street
Is there some significance to that address? A tree name - hmmm - the Goddess tree? Meditation? Magic?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:06PM
Thank you. I just wondered whether it was a Main Street business.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 03 2016, @01:34AM
From my youth, Woolworth's was located on a downtown main street, just like Kresge's, or Murphy's, or any other retailer. Back then, the further from "Main Street" a business was located, the less successful it was. Sometimes, "Main Street" isn't precisely the main street in town. Or, maybe that's just how things worked out over time - Main will be a thoroughfare through town, and the businesses will be set a block or two off of Main.
But, looking at the photos, the young men who staged the sitins appear to be walking along a typical downtown business street for the time. They most certainly aren't out on the edge of town, or on the "wrong side of the tracks".
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 03 2016, @02:02AM
Thank you for your comments. I do understand the expression "Main Street." I didn't mean to cause you to waste your time explaining it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:40AM
Great business for lawyers.
Very slippery slope here.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:22AM
Good, I've already preemptively banned myself from using any social media, ever.
And fuck the nigger dyke bitches at SoylentNews too.
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:54AM
But what about the Jews?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:20AM
dyke kikes on a pike!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:47AM
NIGGER dyke kikes on a pike!
FTFY, YFAAASSH-AT
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:15AM
There, there, fellow AC! It is alright! We can stroke your ego, no matter how twisted it is, if only you give up the hate. It is easy. Here, this is a transgendered ego stroker here to stroke your ego. Now does that feel bad? No, of course it doesn't! Now here is a fundamentalist Christian to stroke you, . . . whoa! Did not think it was going to go down that way! OK, moving on!!! Here is a member of ISIS to stroke you. Now I know that homo stuff is totally verboten in the Nazi Army, I mean, in Isis, but he really thinks you have a purty mouth! Sorry about the decapitation thing. Once you realize how loving all these guys in the Men's rights Movement, and ISIS are, you will not hate them at all! Except for the fact that they all, just like Fundie Christians, Catholic Bishops, Penn State coaches, and Libertarian Preverts, make you their bitch. You down with that?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:24AM
such a shameful state of things but maybe this can spun some real alternatives to this new media olygopoly.
(Score: 5, Funny) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:33AM
First they come for the Hate Speech, which is cool, because it sucks.
Then they come for people who don't follow the crowd, which isn't cool, because that is me.
Then they come for people who's political ideas are different then there own, which doesn't affect me, because they already took me.
Then you have 1984, but copyright doesn't allow you to say it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:55AM
people who don't follow the crowd, which isn't cool, because that is me
by nyder (4525)
Liar, you have a registered account, you goddamn crowd follower! You're a fucking sheep. Baaaa baaa baaaaaaaaa.
(Score: 2) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:26AM
No, a follow would be those who are afraid to stand behind what they say, thus the Anonymous Cowards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:11PM
Lay off of the sheep, you goat fucker!
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:58AM
No, you are thinking of Martin Niemöller. And it ain't 1984 at the end of that, its Hitler. So at least there is no copyright problem.. copyright lawyers are worse than Illinois Nazis ya know.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:00AM
Everybody knows copyright is enforced by Jew Lawyers, and if Hitler(redux) is in charge then obviously the Jewish problem had been dealt with. Without said lawyers copyright is enforced at gunpoint, unless you offer up your daughter to the officer in charge of punishing you, or have a large thriving business in copyright infringement and offer to wet his beak instead.
:)
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:01AM
Then they came for the people who did not know the difference between "there" and "there", or for that matter between "then" and "than", and so, nothing of value was lost. Why cannot the superior race spell there own language prophetically?
(Score: 2) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:29AM
First off, I have dyslexia & ADHD, so I am bound to make some mistakes. If the least of my mistakes is using their instead of there, or vice versa, then I feel I am doing good.
Second, with education always lacking enough funds, are you surprised that people who have been thru the underfunded education system to make mistakes?
Third. Who the fuck cares, right?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:27AM
Dislexia, eh? Welcome to the club, bro! Can'r read one way to the other, but still manage to make sense of things. But I often suspect that it is not some learning disability that is to blame, but rather a dis-ability at learning! Please view Weird Al Yankovic on Word Crimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc [youtube.com] Heh, heh.
(Score: 2) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:09AM
You apparently know nothing about dyslexia and more important, you know nothing about ADHD. If you bothered to learn instead of being a grammar nazi, you'd know that dyslexia doesn't just cover how you see words, and better yet, if you knew anything about ADHD, you'd understand how easy it is for me to get confused by which words are what to use, when they are similar. But that's okay, because I expect such behaviors on people who feel it's important to correct peoples grammar.
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:37AM
Well, obviously you do not know that I have had dyslexia, and some kind of disorder for two and a half millenium, so I would suggest that you go and learn how to speak, and spell, and type, and communicate, because otherwise it appears that you are a self-pitying case of fail. Get some discipline, you illiterate idiot! Yes, it is harder for those of us with the conditions, but we end up better as the result of the struggle, and less tolerant of the slackers who claim to have our disabilities in order to cover for their laziness! Have some respect for grammar nazis who have had to work very hard to get there! (yes, there, not "their", or "they're"). Props, you loser! Give them up!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:57AM
Dude, shut the fuck up. You are the retard who went to correct me and fucked up yourself.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:13AM
Ah! And you think that was not intentional? C'mon, nyder, chill out and just stop being a racist. It's not hard, all the rest of us have done it, and we still are intact.
(Score: 2, Troll) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:37AM
Nope, wasn't intentional, you are just a piece of shit person, a grammar nazi that tried to show someone up, but fucked up himself. Now you are doubling down on stupid.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:07AM
Then they came for the people who did not know the difference between "there" and "there"
I believe you meant [wikipedia.org]: "there" and "their" :]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:24AM
Yes, of course, that is what I meant. Seriously.
(Score: 2, Funny) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:27AM
Well, fucking let me know when the superior race gets here, because you ain't it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:17AM
I love it when Grammar Nazis try to correct people and massively fuck up. No one's perfect and we should all be a little more tolerant when people make mistakes. In most cases it's pretty easy to tell when someone meant "their" but wrote "there" by accident. A simple question, without being a jerk about it, can clear it up if it was a mistake and made the sentence unclear. If someone does it consistently a polite message asking if what they meant was "their" is much better than going all holier than thou condescending asshole, then screw up yourself. Which, IMHO, deserves relentless mocking.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:57PM
"He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones," is a good policy.
I will say though that when somebody is trying to make an argument consistent grammatical and spelling errors will rob it of its force. For my part I am often grateful no such consensus exists about the rules of punctuation; there are areas of agreement but beyond those the niceties vary widely. I like Strunk & White while others prefer the Chicago Manual of Style, et cetera.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:15PM
We're here - and for the most part, we don't care much about spelling. But, it can be fun to kick someone around now and then, using their spelling as an excuse.
BTW - never eat the troll bait.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by nyder on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:25AM
oh that's great, I didn't even notice that. Grammar nazi fucked up himself. what a loser.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:50PM
Also possible: "there" and "they're."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by art guerrilla on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:08AM
*sigh*
so tired of this bee ess:
there is no such thing as 'hate speech', there is speech, there is hate, and speech CAN be hateful (that is why we have speech, after all: to EXPRESS ourselves, not just our angels), but that hate is TOTALLY in the ear of the behearer (?)...
there is hate, there is crime, but there is no such thing as 'hate crime'...
(IF there IS such a thing as 'hate crime', please tell me what a 'love crime' is, then...)
for the millionth time, you stupid fucking inertnet moral scolds: you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:07PM
The Canadian hate speech law doesn't forbid expressing hatred. It forbids knowingly spreading false news in order to incite hatred. And "knowingly" and "false" can be hard to prove.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:33AM
Don't go to those commercial private media - you are messing around there at their pleasure. Stick to SN - no problem to be solved then.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:09AM
Stick to SN - no problem to be solved then.
Oh, my lord, you pathetic bastard! Do you not realize that the overwhelming majority of SN are SJWs? There are like three posters who complain about SJWs, but they are three out of thousands. We will problem you! We will arrange for you to get your racist and misogynist head out of your ass, against your will, if necessary. Are you really so dense as to not see this? Seriously? Well, hang on! It is gonna be a hell of a ride.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:03PM
"SJW" = "Single Jewish Women?"
I'm not single, Jewish, or a woman...
"SJW" = "Sexy Jordanian Wrestler?"
I don't wrestle, don't come from Jordan, but the sexy is arguable.
Am I in the wrong place? ;-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:39AM
Here's the problem with the concept of hate speech: who decides? Who would you nominate to decide for you what you are allowed to read, to say, to think, or to feel? To whom would you give this power? If your answer is, as I hope it would be, that you reserve this right exclusively to yourself, then you either have to grant that same right to everyone else or reveal yourself to be a tyrant at heart. There is no one qualified to decide for anyone else what is considered hateful speech. We all have to decide that for ourselves, and it's impossible to decide if something is hateful without hearing or seeing it first. Once it's explained in this way, any thinking person should see that the legal concept of hate speech is incoherent, deeply illiberal, and morally repugnant.
If you have 20 minutes, listen to Christopher Hitchens explain this better than anyone has before or since.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:43AM
well in this particular case, it's a program that will decide. a rudimentary approach would be to find the liberal overuse of terms deemed to be offensive to trigger a reactionary ban hammer response. however, google has been investing seriously in AI development and language processing, so they may begin leveraging that to identify trends in posts and post responses that correlate with hate speech. frankly, i don't think they should be banned because that is an ineffective way of stopping bigots. reddit's "shadow ban" system is an improvement but i think we could do much better. instead of a simple shadow ban, you could create a shadow social network where people respond to your posts... except they aren't people, they are actually just AIs. the idea is to keep hate mongers engaged so that you waste their time and keeping their hateful posts hidden from the world. this way, they won't simply post their hate somewhere else but will waste all their time in a fantasy world.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:01AM
...to keep hate mongers engaged so that you waste their time and keeping their hateful posts hidden from the world. this way, they won't simply post their hate somewhere else but will waste all their time in a fantasy world.
A network of interconnected computers used to be a great "fantasy world." You could sit at your machine and type whatever you wanted and engage in interesting discussions with people you'd ordinarily never meet.
Even if you didn't actually 100% believe the side you were championing, it was fun to participate in a wide variety of unusual conversations.
When I first started using a BBS in the 1990s I met my first "different" people (wiccans, pagans, homosexuals, etc.) They found a place to communicate and share their "otherness." I learned quite a bit through the experience. They/we were all vaguely afraid of having our discussion crunched under some right-wing totalitarian boot. We'd have never believed the boot would come, but that it would be on the left foot instead.
That "fantasy world" is gone now, and I'll bet most people under 30 could hardly believe such a place ever existed the way it did.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:12PM
It was that way once, and it can be again. But we have to make it so.
Let's recall though that at the time of the BBS'es it was at the tail-end of the 80's, the Reagan years, with all of its in-your-face machismo, war mongering, Christian Right Triumphalism. The BBS'es were themselves an escape from that daily reality. It was the nerds like us that built those and grew them into the Internet. We were the vanguard of greater freedom then, and we can still be if we choose to.
The people that discourage the stuff we create and discourage freedom of speech and all other aspects of freedom are stupid, reactionary, and slow. They used to have us on muscle, but now that we have robots, it's possible for us to create a future where we're not out-muscled either. Having lots of money is what they still have, so a good step toward taking their power away would be to find ways to make their money meaningless.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:30PM
" We'd have never believed the boot would come, but that it would be on the left foot instead."
Spread the word, far and wide. The left really isn't very different from the right. https://casescorner.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/boot_govmnt_l-r-nodiff_onblk_248x246.png?w=248&h=246 [wordpress.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:20PM
A program decides. So - we have a working artificial intelligence now? FFS man - the program is going to spit out the answers that the PROGRAMMERS designed it to spit. So, what you really have, are some special snowflakes dictating how you may express yourself by proxy.
Get the flamethrower, we've got some snowflakes to take care of.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:46AM
Just as with any other law that we pass, the right to judge something as illegal is achieved by consensus. Notice that I say illegal, not immoral. The immorality is something that You still decide for Yourself. The decision is to distribute this power among the people, not to give it to an individual. The only reason this power is given to individuals (though again, through popular vote), is because that is more efficient.
So, You are saying that "race X is Y" is not racist if Y is non-trivial and non-tautological? It is a broad generalization attributed to an individual because of a race that person belongs to. We often easily contend that this generalization is not only logically invalid, but also damaging to rational argument and logical inference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:43AM
Just as with any other law that we pass, the right to judge something as illegal is achieved by consensus.
Consensus among corrupt politicians, you mean. I certainly don't live in a direct democracy, and really wouldn't want to either.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:01AM
However, he doesn't address the "who judges" issue that Hitchens covers, and which was your point. But that's only the cherry on top of the counter argument, the counter argument should be "is it even right to do at all?", as if you can settle that argument with in the negative, who judges is irrelevant.
To use an example that at least Hitchens might appreciate: compare arguing against theism by simply arguing for atheism versus arguing that you can't decide which of the deities is the right one. Surely "0" is better than "can't decide which one"?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:02PM
"Who is the one more trustworthy than all the Buddhas and sages?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:26PM
machines.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:38PM
Machines aren't "whos." They're "whats."
At least until somebody makes an AI that can pass the Turing Test.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:47PM
then the question was discriminatory! ;)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:56AM
brought to you by cock.li!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:50AM
Remove Kebab! - See?
Return all Tacos! - Get it?
Build Wall and Cholos will pay for it -- or else the CIA will run their drugs right through their neigborhoods rather than South of the Border while demonstrating why we need such a wall to Make Mexico Great Again so the migrantes don't have to flee from their homes in the first place.
Ah, see, now that is hate speech. Fuck fixing Mexico so that people have decent lives down there free from drug lords! Hell no! We Democrats need those migrants to swarm across the border like so many ants running from a devastating flood of violence and poverty... Why? Because they typically vote left! The right are RACISTS! They want the Mexcians to be able to STAY in THEIR HOMES in MEXICO and be PROSPEROUS so they don't have to FLEE FOR THEIR LIVES! NO NO NO! Fuck that! WE NEED THEM HERE in the USA, and anyone who says otherwise is promoting Trump's HATE SPEECH!
Protip: Trump wants to make Syria great again by saving the money we'd spend on migrants here to rebuild and secure Syria instead. Trump wants to make make Mexico Great Again too, along with America, since the drug cartel controlled government's can't seem to give the people what they've been crying out for... and what the Mexicans are already doing on their border with Guatemala (build a big wall to keep out the illegals).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:28PM
Trump has no intention of building the wall. That's why he keeps insisting that Mexico will pay for it.
No funds = No Wall.
Hey, he reserves the right to change his mind, as he's already reminded us (after he sowed up the nomination, of course). Go read up on Trump University on how he treats people infatuated with the idea of Trump improving their lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:59PM
how much wall can you build for 500 million a year?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Demose on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:06AM
Diaspora*, GNUSocial, and MediaGoblin are all nice.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:30AM
Tech giants are all looking for closer partnership with government, and government thinks all republicans are racists. People have been getting banned for having different opinion for a long time now. This is just formal announcement that says - we have the backing from powers that be. Prepare to get fucked by the long dick of law.
As a non-white I seen racism more closely than any liberal white can. But I have always solved it with education. But that is not the power govt. wants, they want a tool that can be used at will.
Say bye bye to hacker ethos. Welcome our new overlords.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:17PM
I don't think that's the case at all. DIY hacker culture is alive and well, and thriving as never before. There are so many ways to hack now, much more easily than ever before. I see it every time I go to Maker Faire; there's always something new, and the coolest, most inspirational ideas have nothing to do with any corporation at all. Just geeks doing what geeks love.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday June 02 2016, @02:22PM
That's hacking, not hacker ethos. Hacker ethos are a function of how much power hackers hold - which was a lot when hackers were the gods of their field. But thanks to tech becoming mainstream, the ethics and morals are not in our control anymore. That's just the fact. A sad fact. The young generation has bought start-up cool aid and tech giants have shaken hands with the government.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by garrulus on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:39AM
Use encrypted self hosted open chat protocols.
(Score: 2) by timbim on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:16PM
Like IRC?