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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:46AM (#353863)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @11:43AM (#353995)

    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.