The EU, along with Social Media sites, getting ready to combat "Hate Speech" online within 24 hours

[Prime Time]

The tricky part is determining who decides what constitutes "hate speech." Good luck with that.
***************************************************************************************
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-to-tackle-online-hate-speech-within-24-hours

Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours
By Stephanie Bodoni

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.

Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies. The companies said it remains a “challenge” to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and hate speech in the self-generated content on online platforms.

“We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow,” said Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White, in the statement. “However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”

Platforms Sued
A French Jewish youth group, UEJF, sued Twitter, Facebook and Google in Paris this month over how they monitor hate speech on the web. In the course of about six weeks in April and May, members of French anti-discrimination groups flagged unambiguous hate speech that they said promoted racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism.

More than 90 percent of the posts pointed out to Twitter and YouTube remained online within 15 days on average following requests for removal, according to the study by UEJF, SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie.

“With a global community of 1.6 billion people we work hard to balance giving people the power to express themselves whilst ensuring we provide a respectful environment,” said Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook, in the statement. “There’s no place for hate speech on Facebook.”

 

[Ramhusker]

:argue::banghead::giveup:alm:

 

[fearsomefour]

Typical and not surprising.
As soon as "free speech" zones started showing up on college campuses.....COLLEGE CAMPUSES....we were doomed. We have a raised a generation (or two) of cowards. People who think their feelings matter more than the free exchange of ideas. Creating an "atmosphere" where feeling are more important than facts....well, we are on the downward spiral.
The first and obvious question is "hateful" to be determined by whom?
If you don't think they will not be pushing an agenda then you are being foolish. The standards will not be equally enforced or applied.
I can't wait for the legislation to come down the road criminalizing expressing non believe in man made climate change....anything to protect the growing tax base.
Controlling language, the press, social interaction, expression....these are all ploys to control thought. You control thought, you control society.
"You don't have burn books, just remove 'em...."

The last 10 to 12 years has switched my political affiliation based on just this kind of thought control/PCism BS. Never shall I return.

 

[Roman Snow]

Typical and not surprising.
As soon as "free speech" zones started showing up on college campuses.....COLLEGE CAMPUSES....we were doomed. We have a raised a generation (or two) of cowards. People who think their feelings matter more than the free exchange of ideas. Creating an "atmosphere" where feeling are more important than facts....well, we are on the downward spiral.
The first and obvious question is "hateful" to be determined by whom?
If you don't think they will not be pushing an agenda then you are being foolish. The standards will not be equally enforced or applied.
I can't wait for the legislation to come down the road criminalizing expressing non believe in man made climate change....anything to protect the growing tax base.
Controlling language, the press, social interaction, expression....these are all ploys to control thought. You control thought, you control society.
"You don't have burn books, just remove 'em...."

The last 10 to 12 years has switched my political affiliation based on just this kind of thought control/PCism BS. Never shall I return.

Fearsome! My brother, from another mother! :cheers:

 

[Roman Snow]

...Flv, my friend, perhaps you ought to reconsider the validity of your (rather witty) "occupation" listing under your avatar.
Cheers

 

[Roman Snow]

Let's actually eliminate "hate policies" by our government against the tax payers.

How about "hate lectures" given by Marxist American professors, holed up in their cozy little tenured offices, against the country that gives them their cozy little jobs and lifestyle. Forcing naïve young minds to buy the "hate books" they call text books, that they wrote themselves, against said country. Meanwhile, the parents who pay the professors salaries through tuition, and/or state taxes, slave to finance their underhanded spineless scheme to get the kids to hate America. He tells the kids to be open minded- but only open to his specific twisted belief system.

It is mostly the "tolerant" among us seeking to limit debate. Weak.

 

[LesBaker]

Social media has enabled a lot of bullies and racists and morons for sure, he got what he deserved. I bet he won't do it again. There are too little consequences for shitty behavior these days. This turd even went to the "my account was hacked" card which we know is never true LOL.

However part of me is in step with you, is what he did worth 56 days in jail? He served half, is that the right amount? I don't know. I wonder if the public shaming is enough or not.

This is an issue that has to be addressed but it'll be critical that it's done judiciously.

 

[Angry Ram]

We have a raised a generation (or two) of cowards.

No. I can't tell you how irritated I get when I hear that or anything similar to describe MY generation. News flash...times are changing, what worked 20, even 10 years ago does not apply in 2016 and beyond.

People who think their feelings matter more than the free exchange of ideas. Creating an "atmosphere" where feeling are more important than facts....well, we are on the downward spiral.

And what are these "facts" exactly? If anything, facts get disregarded or ignored b/c of conservative beliefs.

The first and obvious question is "hateful" to be determined by whom?

IDK, it's pretty self explanatory. If I walk down the South Oval at the University of Oklahoma (which I did), and got shouted at by preachers that I was going to hell (which happened), kinda constitutes hate.

Controlling language, the press, social interaction, expression....these are all ploys to control thought. You control thought, you control society.

Ummm, this isn't the government. It's social media trying to tackle hate speech. It even goes here, how many times have threads been closed b/c of various reasons, or members being banned?

 

[RaminExile]

Ah. There we go. The political correctness thought police will get us all in the end.

Freedom of speech must be absolute in a free society. One persons hate speech is another's free expression. Who determines what's hate speech anyway? Whichever person or group feels oppressed that week?

Cultural Marxism is what it is.

 

[fearsomefour]

No. I can't tell you how irritated I get when I hear that or anything similar to describe MY generation. News flash...times are changing, what worked 20, even 10 years ago does not apply in 2016 and beyond.

Seems like a strange thing to get irritated with.
It is (obviously) a very general statement, related to society as I perceive it as a whole, not individual people.
Human nature and reality does not change much.

And what are these "facts" exactly? If anything, facts get disregarded or ignored b/c of conservative beliefs.

Facts....statements of truth. Our society is moving to a place where there is less value put on such things and "feelings" are of more value. Nothing good of this is going to come of a society headed in that direction.
Opinion is one thing....and I want a society where freedom of speech is actually valued, where opinions can be shared, whether popular or not.
I assign no predetermined affiliation on closed mindedness. Your comment is revealing.

IDK, it's pretty self explanatory. If I walk down the South Oval at the University of Oklahoma (which I did), and got shouted at by preachers that I was going to hell (which happened), kinda constitutes hate.

Yep, ignorant and mean people abound.
They certainly have the right to their opinion and have a right to voice it.

Ummm, this isn't the government. It's social media trying to tackle hate speech. It even goes here, how many times have threads been closed b/c of various reasons, or members being banned?

You are correct, it is not the government.
It is part of a social movement to achieve an end. Shaming people with different opinions or viewpoints via social media has been an ongoing thing....so, just ban them instead.
It is, to me, the tip of a social iceberg that we have been sailing toward for awhile.

 

[fearsomefour]

Ah. There we go. The political correctness thought police will get us all in the end.

Freedom of speech must be absolute in a free society. One persons hate speech is another's free expression. Who determines what's hate speech anyway? Whichever person or group feels oppressed that week?

Cultural Marxism is what it is.

Or whomever is pushing an agenda.
Cultural Marxism is a great term.
It is amazing to me where we are socially.
Read a story today about kids in a Texas high school not being allowed to wear the "ropes"....or whatever they are called....for academic achievement on their graduation robes. Why? The principal decided it may make the students that don't have them feel bad or not as good or something. Well, they are not as good.
The pathetic thing is all of this lameness in the name of niceness is not nice....it is cruel in its own way.
Lower standards....ignore achievement.
Cultural Marxism....and most that are involved in this don't even realize it.

 

[Angry Ram]

Seems like a strange thing to get irritated with.
It is (obviously) a very general statement, related to society as I perceive it as a whole, not individual people.
Human nature and reality does not change much.

When someone calls the generation I'm a part of a bunch of cowards, you better believe I'll get irritated with it.

Facts....statements of truth. Our society is moving to a place where there is less value put on such things and "feelings" are of more value. Nothing good of this is going to come of a society headed in that direction.
Opinion is one thing....and I want a society where freedom of speech is actually valued, where opinions can be shared, whether popular or not.
I assign no predetermined affiliation on closed mindedness. Your comment is revealing.

Freedom of speech argument again. All that means is you can criticize the President or other government officials without them arresting you. It doesn't shield you from racist or demeaning comments, or in some cases hate speeches that make people kill each other.

Also, I know what a fact is. And TBH we went off on a tangent here. Your sharing of idea is very valid, but you are assuming it's beneficial for society. Hate speech or racist propaganda isn't.

Yep, ignorant and mean people abound.
They certainly have the right to their opinion and have a right to voice it.

They don't have the right to demean people, though.

You are correct, it is not the government.
It is part of a social movement to achieve an end. Shaming people with different opinions or viewpoints via social media has been an ongoing thing....so, just ban them instead.
It is, to me, the tip of a social iceberg that we have been sailing toward for awhile.

No, it's trying to stop hate on fellow human beings. IDK why you wouldn't want to stop that, or at the very least prevent it. Social media is a huge influence on people's views on the world.

Basically, I think you are confusing preventing hate speech vs. people being butthurt. The latter of which I could give rats ass about. Get over it if you are butthurt if someone says Merry Christmas to you or see Heidi Klum be naked in a burger commercial. I see even just one post of being anti-gay or anti-Semitic, you damn right I want that shit removed.

 

[fearsomefour]

When someone calls the generation I'm a part of a bunch of cowards, you better believe I'll get irritated with it.

Ok.
Guess I just don't understand that. It is like someone insulting where I grew up. I had no say in it, why would I care?

It doesn't shield you from racist or demeaning comments, or in some cases hate speeches that make people kill each other.

Also, I know what a fact is. And TBH we went off on a tangent here. Your sharing of idea is very valid, but you are assuming it's beneficial for society. Hate speech or racist propaganda isn't.

This is where you are fuzzing the line.
"Hate speech"....again, I guess this left to be defined by the people hearing it??....There is a big difference between someone spewing an opinion or point of view that someone may find offensive or bigoted and someone telling someone to kill other people. There are laws against that sort of thing. There should not be laws against someone having bigoted or stupid opinions....I know that this is not the government, at least not yet. There are plenty of places where it is against the law to say things that other might find offensive. The problem with all of this non sense is how it is defined....it is like the old arguments with indecency laws. The limiting of free speech, not because of violence or murder, but because of something as lame as feelings, is where all of this is headed in my opinion.
The truth is, it can not really be defined. It does not matter if a specific opinion is a benefit to society or not....it is the free speech that is beneficial to society.
It is a slippery slope.

They don't have the right to demean people, though.

They have the right to their opinion. Depends what you mean by demean I guess.
Like the bozos who protest the veterans funerals. Do they have a right to be this vile and offensive? Yes, absolutely. Is that a giant pain in the butt and irritating as all get out? Yes.
A place like a college (correct me if I am wrong) where this happened is going to have a process for people to make speeches, protest or whatever. The demeaning is left up to the people who are involved I guess.
Someone being told they are going to hell.....well, that may greatly upset some people and make others laugh.

No, it's trying to stop hate on fellow human beings. IDK why you wouldn't want to stop that, or at the very least prevent it. Social media is a huge influence on people's views on the world.

It is human nature and cannot be prevented. Sometimes in the macro, sometimes in the micro. Social media is a big unruly monster for sure. Maybe this is an honest attempt to corral some of the wild west of social media....to stop terrorist organizations from recruiting kids....from people encouraging violence ect.
Ok. Thats fine if that is where it is coming from.
The other shortcoming I see with this is it may eliminate some of the more hamfisted troublemakers but, for the more intelligent ones....the language may change a little, but, the message will not.
Decency, compassion, caring, empathy....hatred, bigotry, ignorance....these things cannot be regulated out of the human heart, be it by private company or government.

Basically, I think you are confusing preventing hate speech vs. people being butthurt.

Could be, but, until it can be defined in a real way it will end up being the same thing.

 

[fearsomefour]

Give me an example of something that would result in jail time.

 

[Roman Snow]

I know. The "occupation" is exactly what is being discussed here. A social bullying to cater to a politically correct set of beliefs, or in much of Europe's case, the willingness of whole neighborhoods to be taken over in paralysis, giving in to Sharia Law, cowing to demands for change of culture. Bending over backwards to be accepting and open minded usually result in a cultural broken back. Bullies smell fear and weakness.

No. I can't tell you how irritated I get when I hear that or anything similar to describe MY generation. News flash...times are changing, what worked 20, even 10 years ago does not apply in 2016 and beyond.

On the first point @Angry Ram I empathise. We all go through that with our generation. There is pride and hope that yours will be different. Yours has all the great ideas! etc. Well news flash: All generations have something to offer, and all achieve, and fail. Morally, or otherwise. (Keep in mind, it was generations before you that were visionary enough to invent all the technology and crap you now use, and think young people have mastered over their parents.) Times are always changing. And always staying the same.

And what are these "facts" exactly? If anything, facts get disregarded or ignored b/c of conservative beliefs.

I think @fearsomefour covered that pretty well. The most closed minds I see today are on the left. They tend to want to shout down debate, and personally attack opponents. (see Agore: Global Warming/Climate Change) Which Facts get disregarded by the right?

If I walk down the South Oval at the University of Oklahoma (which I did), and got shouted at by preachers that I was going to hell (which happened), kinda constitutes hate.

True. That is hateful. Though also very rare. As a Christian, I abhor these tactics. Jesus loved on people, and we are all sinners. He showed love and forgiveness. I do, however, think the image of the Christian screamers and abortion protesters are overstated.

Quietly, Christian groups all over the world selflessly give and feed and love in the name of Jesus. By the thousands. They don't employ PR teams. And they are not featured in the New York Times or the Guardian.

It's social media trying to tackle hate speech.

Read that. Who are Social Media's official representatives? Surely their motives are pure. "tackling hate speech" Yes, let's tackle that. Quick quiz! Which of the following hate groups shall we monitor?

• The NRA? :rant:A bunch of gun toting, dangerous whackos!
• NAMBLA? The North American Man-Boy Love Association. Ah, fine fellows.
• Those that distrust the global warming "science" and don't want to economically succumb to China and India,- Countries that refuse to participate, as they pollute exponentially more than the US? (And laugh at our silly Crusade)
• Planned Parenthood?
• Campus Conservatives?
• Donald Trump?
• Michael Moore?

We are not all Americans on ROD, but America's 1st Amendment is EXACTLY to protect discourse that we do not agree with. Hate speech, if you will. (Not just political speech)

Someone earlier was right on this thread. We need to grow a backbone again. Repugnant speech should be met with a well thought-out response. Not the Brown Shirts and the Gulag. That's weak. We are better than that.

:flanders: Why, thank you, Roman. You've certainly earned your participation trophy today.

alm:

 

[Roman Snow]

Lower standards....ignore achievement.

"The soft bigotry of lowered expectations." -George W. Bush, in speaking of inner city school destruction by the liberal establishment.