Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours

posted by takyon on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the quick-to-censor dept.

jmorris writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:49AM (#353836)

    > 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?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Overrated=1, Touché=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:53AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:53AM (#353866) Journal

    Your comment reminds me of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980):

    The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned, and that such result does not infringe appellants' property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

    —https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74 [cornell.edu]

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:42PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:42PM (#354044) Homepage Journal

    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.