Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Others Agree To Remove Hate Speech Across the EU 405
Tech giants in conjunction with European Union are taking a stand to fight hate speech. Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook have launched "code of conduct" aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe. The companies aren't legally obligated, but have agreed to "public commitments" to review the "majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" in less than 24 hours, and make it easier for law enforcement in Europe to notify the firms directly. From a TechCrunch report: Tech companies will have to find the right balance between freedom of expression and hateful content. Based on the code of conduct, they'll have dedicated teams reviewing flagged items (poor employees who will have to review awful things every day). Tech companies will also educate their users and tell them that it's forbidden to post hateful content. They'll cooperate with each other to share best practice. They'll encourage flagging of hateful content and they'll promote counter speech against hateful rhetoric. It's good to see that this issue got escalated and the European Commission was able to come up with a code of conduct quite quickly. Instead of making tech companies deal with every single European country, they can agree on rules for the EU as a whole."The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech," Vera Jourova, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, wrote in the European Commission press release. "Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."
What could go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
No slippery slope here, no sir.
of course (Score:2)
...the first comments removed will be any anti-microsoft comments. So much for the year of linux on the desktop...
Re: (Score:3)
Not to worry. I'm used to it.
who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
this is going to go very very badly
Re: (Score:3)
Will saying "I hate Monday" equal hate speech and if it does then that's a lot of posts to delete.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that is about 1/7 of the worlds population, which is genocide. pr0fessor belongs in a re-education camp.
Since the group of people born on Monday is not a national, racial, political, or cultural group, it's not genocide. But it could help mitigate Climate Change, so it's not all bad.
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hasn't it already gone very badly in some countries? When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly. When it's illegal to discuss (one side of) a political issue, such as immigration, even by lawmakers it has gone very badly indeed.
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no, no. That's the prelude to badly. When you stop people from discussing and protesting things they disagree with, it's what comes next that's the reall things going badly.
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no. That's the prelude to badly. When you stop people from discussing and protesting things they disagree with, it's what comes next that's the reall things going badly.
Would you say you... "hate" that scenario, citizen?
Re: (Score:2)
When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly.
If you're referring to Geert Wilders, his arrest was for a speech at a rally, not in parliament.
Re: (Score:2)
One example as a guest worker in a European country, I was not allowed to criticize the government and I had to sign a form agreeing to that when I had to do the various paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
One example as a guest worker in a European country, I was not allowed to criticize the government
Are you serious here or joking? Because if that's true, it's beyond creepy. Everyone should be allowed to criticize their government (or anyone else's).
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how desperate are you that you actually took the job?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK it's not true. At least, not in any country of the European Union. Maybe Belarus (I was there with a <3 months visa, maybe different for longer term) , Ukraine or another former soviet bloc country, Turkey...
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:5, Informative)
will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???
Yes
Re: (Score:2)
will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???
I think that we're already there. Certainly Brendan Eich fits in this category. Don't go with political process and your career, and maybe more, will suffer.
Re: (Score:3)
The details will be outlined in your next edition of Newspeak.
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple. Harassment and hate speech is anything that disagrees with me or that I find uncomfortable or offensive.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me try (IANAL) to translate the law as it is valid in one of the EU members:
Whoever threatens an individual or a group of people due their race, ethnicity, skin color, origin or religion, if the excuse for the threat due aforementioned reasons is committing a crime, restriction of rights and freedoms or whoever carries out such restriction or whoever is inciting restrictions of rights and freedoms of some nation,nationality, race, ethnic group will be punished by imprisonment up to 3 years
Whoever
Re: (Score:2)
a)incites violence or hate against group of people or an individual due their affiliation to some race, nation, nationality, skin color, ethnic group, origin or religion,
How do you define hate? If someone points out issues with say the Church of Scientology that casts them in a bad light does that qualify as hate speech? Will companies throw in the towel and simply remove anything with > X complaints giving in to astroturfing hate complaints as a way to stifle legitimate criticism? As with many ideas, t
Re: who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:2)
So, does this mean people who refer to "rape culture" will finally be forced to shut up?
Re: (Score:3)
You're not a lawyer, as you said, so obviously you're missing the reason why the above is pretty fucked up.
First of all there's no clear definition of what constitutes a 'threat' against those groups, and it is established international law that 'refugees' have the right of asylum. So let's say you don't like economic (or even civil war) refugees coming to your country in the hundreds of thousands due to their way of life. (patriarchal, non-democratic, etc, views/actions) Send them back / keep them out.
Make
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:4, Informative)
Oxford Dictionary:
threat: noun; a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
So if I post "I don't want them to come to my country because they will overload and ruin our social system" it's not a threat. If I post "we should beat the crap out of Syrians coming to establish Sharia law in my country", yes that is a threat.
The law that I quoted, is not something that is new. It exists for decades and there are at about 2-3 cases per year,where it is applied in a court (and it makes headlines). I.e. I don't see it creating the mess you forecast. That can change as the refugee crisis mounts up again, but that is yet to be seen.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a lawyer you should understand that there is no true international law, established or otherwise, because there is no enforcement mechanism that can be brought to bear equally in every corner of the world. Even countries with advanced rule of law have all kinds of problems defining jurisdiction, extradition rights, and problems leading towards sovereignty issues. Only a few countries have the ability to enforce there definition of international law and that relies on political pressure backed up
Re: (Score:2)
what incites you might not incite the masses, but it still incited you, is that hate speech? with trigger warnings now everything is hate speech to some group.
this is not the correct answer, the correct answer is to let the haters talk
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever publicly [...]
b) defames such group or individual
[...] will be punished by imprisonment from 1 up to 3 years
Now throw in interpretation of defamation, where drawing attention to the race or religion of the Rotherham rapists could be construed as defamation and suddenly you can't say a fucking thing about anybody.
Shit, a year in jail for describing the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys? That's what that law dictates. That's fucking horrific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Butters: Do I have to, sir?
PC Principal: All I'm asking you to do is go through their social media and delete the two or three comments that are mean.
Butters: PC Principal, ah I don't think you quite realize how much negative stuff I have to sift through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SJWs of course. All those people can get off welfare and use those gender studies degrees.
Only really serious hate speech, like disagreeing with anything a woman or person of colour says.
It'll be fine, and if you disagree you will be required to get a 2 inch tall tattoo on your forehead that says "Shitlord".
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. who gets to decide what hate speech is real and what is imagined?
According to TFS, it will be Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook. And, you can look at the "code of conduct" here [europa.eu].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Hateful stupid people usually think they're doing it right. Letting them vent gives them the learning opportunity of having a listener say, "Are you stupid, and/or angry?) Bottle up their speech, and that anger and stupidity will bust out somewhere. You'll be wishing you'd just let 'em speak. It really doesn't hurt near as much as the alternatives.
Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate speech, like it or not, is part of having a free society. RIP, Europe.
Hate speech is free speech you don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
People love to fall back on the "It's a private service" argument, but that's nonsense. These companies aren't agreeing to spend their money on policing speech because they're caring corporations who want to help people. They're doing it because governments are pressuring them to do it. Governments are using corporations to get around the rules and do things governments aren't supposed to be able to do.
We call that fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah was going to ask, are muslims exempt from this?
Re: (Score:2)
I think people who disagree with my political views are engaging in hate speech. Can I get to decide?
Hate Speech = not voteing our way! (Score:2)
Hate Speech = not voteing our way!
Re: (Score:2)
The slope is nothing BUT slippery :(
Everybody gets so damned butthurt about EVERYTHING....
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: My native keyboard layout has Z and Y reversed from normal US layout.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you don't get it. That's fun.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem at all with terrorism posts on Twitter and/or Facebook.
Gives me a chance to point and laugh.
But then, I'm not so frightened of words as some people these days seem to be....
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly support terrorists posting on Twitter (Score:2)
> So you either support terrorism posts on Twitter and Facebook (ISIL et al.) or you don't.
I very strongly support terrorists posting on Twitter.
A long time ago, I was a licensed private investigator and I did a bit of bounty hunting - finding people who asked a bail bondsman to out their bail, then skipped out leaving the bondsman holding the bag. Once in a while, some idiot fugitive would post a picture or location on Twitter or Facebook; "Hangin with my homies at Kirk's Bar". An hour later, the idiot
Well thats (Score:3, Insightful)
Doubleplusgood
Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.
So, European values don't actually include free expression. Will bouncing back and forth between these too opposing goals cause so much friction that the interwebs actually catch on fire?
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly the EU will have more tools to effectively squelch honest reporting about the current ISIS invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what Slashdot has come to. Alex fucking Jones.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how it doesn't mention anything about migrants.
Funny how your reading skills are so poor you can't figure out that this phrase means migrants:
"Then I was laid off from my accommodation on the phone. When I asked the reason, he said that people come from other countries."
But stories like that aren't the kind of stories that leftist, mainstream press like to report about when it comes to the mass migration going on. But when a kid dies, well that's front page news. Nevermind the immense cost (both socially and economically) to the host countries, or the f
Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score:2)
No country has completely unfettered free speech, including the US. In both the US and the EU. In the US, this includes:
- incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected speech
- false statements of fact are often not protected speech (libel and slander fit here)
- child pornography is not protected
- fighting words are not protected
- speech owned by others is not protected
- commercial speech has diminished protections (eg false adverts may be punished or prohibited)
- speech made in a way that invokes a
Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incitement to immediate violence may be the only legitimate example in your list of prior restraint of speech based on content (the special treatment of child pornography is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one cares to protest that one). Libel and slander are a tort, not a crime. Fraud is a crime, but that's a regulation of business practice, not of speech per se (a lot of fraud involves what you don't say).
Particularly in the realm of political speech, only incitement to immediate violence should ever
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a fallacy to conflate a legal right to freedom of speech with the moral right to freedom of expression, especially in a world filled with "optional" privately owned public spaces where freedom of expression is restricted by property rights.
Although I suppose the good news is you can stand on a crate in the public square and say anything you want because there's nobody left in the public square.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you're doing is improving the window dressing on Facebook's censorship.
Of course they've always had the ability to remove posts for any reason they like, but they've generally been inhibited in the early years of the platform for a garden variety of motivations, such as not wanting to inhibit the network effect by discouraging users and a lack of a coherent justification outside the realm of the outer limits of decency (ie, porn or other visually explicit imagery).
By hopping on the "hate speech" tr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a different between some racist twonk saying "ALL {X} MUST DIE!" (or other racist b.s.) and saying "Your message has no place here, and we're not going to allow it."
It's more like this:
Government: "Terrorist are a problem! We must ban hate speech."
Pleb: "Yes, and maybe you shouldn't have let in all those people associated with terrorism, violence, and intolerance."
Government: "Xenophobia! This hate speech must be banned!"
Re: (Score:3)
They're right-wing sources with evidence to back them up. But since the left has no interest on reporting incidents like this, you feel free to dismiss them out of hand.
And still loving how you want me to die in a fire when you claim only violent posts will be censored. What a hypocrite and an asshole to boot.
Emacs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no. It's obvious this is a victory for vi users everywhere, er, in Europe!
Hate speech (Score:2)
Does that include
I don't want these ##%^&(*&@ windows 10 updates
Code of Conduct = Hate Speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about substances which are hydrophobic or oleophobic?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they remind you of that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech
What? What speech was said that triggered the attacks? The attacks would have been done regardless of what anyone said.
Even if you buy into the nonsense the west is responsible for the attacks that is still because of something the west DID, not because of what they SAID.
In the end the "illegal online hate speech" will be anything that displeases the ruling class. History has shown us again and again how well it turns out when all news is just censored propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
AC already beat me too it but to add - it's right there in the summary:
Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."
Nowhere in her quote is their a suggestion that they are doing this out of some need to assuage western guilt as your comment implies.
IMO this isn't really as newsworthy as people are making it out to be. While I don't agree with them European countries have had hate speech laws on their books since the end of WW II. If some American companies want to pander to these laws in order to grow their market or avoid some other regulatory overs
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think it's about that? That certainly is not the only speech that will be blocked (if in fact any of that "speech" is even blocked at all).
It will be used by and large to erase any criticism of muslim extremists, on the pretext that someone may think all muslims are extremists.
It's pretty telling I think that you make your claims as an AC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in TFS...
Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."
You can extrapolate whatever you want from the article and argue that's where this is all heading, we probably agree on a number of points. But you quoted the EU rep out of context to support your point. You don't have to do that, you have a point to make and can do so without willfully ignoring the content of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
No, look, if Charlie Hebdo hadn't published their 'hate speech' then those terrorist attacks wouldn't have happened. So they've fixed the 'problem', by getting rid of the 'hate speech'.
I've seen those cartoons. I cannot see how Charlie Hebdo is not 'hate speech', surely its a paradigm example of 'hate speech'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How knowledgeable are you about French politics and, in particular, the specific people they were satirizing? Because they often look offensive to an outsider, but people who know what's going on understand the message.
There were references to certain historical personages couched in a way which certainly appeared intended to provoke hatred and anger.
Don't particularly care about French politics.
Re: (Score:3)
If I want to publish a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammad having gay sex with Carl Sagan that's my prerogative and my right. Don't like it? Don't look at it.
Not that I would because
A.) I can't draw
B.) I'm generally not an asshole until provoked
This is a serious slippery slope. Even saying "The God of Abraham does not exist and is simply a bronze-age Jewish mythology" can be labeled as hate speech. Even if that is a core part of my [non]religious beliefs.
I'm not going to tapdance around people's feelings un
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that I agree with the existance of 'hate speech' laws, I don't.
I'm just saying that its difficult (for me) to see how 'hate speech laws' could reasonably be formulated such that Charlie Hebdo doesn't fall foul of them.
The law should be able to be applied impartially without looking like an ass(hole).
Re: (Score:2)
i just hate this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1984 was too soon... (Score:3)
George Orwell was right, he was just a man before his time... He should have titled his book 2016...
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the book... The word we are all converging on is "tolerance"
So is that transparent enough for you?
Re: (Score:3)
The word we are all converging on is "tolerance"
I think tolerance is the word that is used by the side trying to get the upper hand. I heard a lot of calling for tolerance when gay marriage was still in the trying to get legal phase. Now that the LGBTxxx side seems to have the upper hand it's about forcing bakers into making cakes and people losing their jobs over not supporting gay marriage. Tolerance went out the window as soon as they had the upper hand. I'm against any group calling for penalties based on a person's views or voting habits. If on
You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's all remember that this doesn't really REMOVE hate speech. It hides it, allowing us all to feel wonderful about ourselves and that we've "done something" about hate speech.
We haven't *actually* DONE anything.
Like Juncker's fantastically anti-democratic reaction to the threat of the Ã-FP victory in Austria (I won't allow any far-right reactionaries any power in the EU!), Europe seems to fundamentally "not get" how democracy works. When confronted with something unpleasant, they try to ban it.
The only cure for unpleasant speech is more speech. Anything else ultimately makes it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you just **** it when that happens? (Score:2)
Censorship *****.
I Blame Trump's Rhetoric!!! (Score:2)
Donald Trump's divisive rhetoric made this necessary -- well, that and the white trash to which it appeals. Fortunately, we are seeing increasingly rapid replacement of whites the world over by more vibrant populations that keep their women barefoot and pregnant. So this, quite reasonable, limitation of freedom of speech is only a temporary measure.
Typo (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY
Babies and bathwater, slippery slopes, boiling frogs, etc...
So Will The Dalai Lama Be Deleted (Score:2)
http://tribune.com.pk/story/11... [tribune.com.pk]
Seems what he is saying now qualifies as hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
So it begins... (Score:2)
In the US that would be an illegal trust. (Score:2)
Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook ... aren't legally obligated, but have agreed ...
Great! A conspiracy of the major industry players to censor unpopular opinions from their services.
Seems to me, in the U.S., that would constitute an illegal cartel.
Remember when the Internet was going to improve freedom of speech? Apparently not in Europe.
Fortunately, the peer-to-peer approaches to conferencing still work. This just means that people using these commercial services, either to conference or
Re: (Score:2)
"European values and laws are respected" (Score:2)
European values and laws are respected
Yea, didn't we fight a revolution to get rid of those things?
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. You might not like the Nazis, but trying to silence them just makes the situation worse.
Look at the KKK in the USA, they are a joke. They have their little rallies and parades, but most people just roll their eyes at them. But if you tried to ban them, they would grow massively in support overnight.
So let the Nazis spew their hate speech in the light where everyone can laugh at it.
We never "get it" for long... (Score:2)
It's neat to live long enough to watch society repeat old mistakes.
Those old dudes decided that speech is an inalienable right of humans for a reason, ya know? (Of course, even they didn't anticipate government prohibiting a plant.) There will be hate speech. The only place it's safe is out in the open where the speaker gets a broad audience and some fair feedback. Push it underground to small groups of people looking for it and you've got real problems brewing.
Call me whatever you want, just don't call me
Difference between "hate speech" & "free speec (Score:2)
No difference as far as I can see.
You can go anywhere and say things that are politically correct for that area. You have free speech in North Korea, as long as you don't say anything politically incorrect.
We gotta do something before it's too late... (Score:2)
Corporate governance over our lives is near complete already. Add your name to an effort to stop it non-violently while/if we can : http://www.movetoamend.org/ [movetoamend.org]
Re: (Score:2)
more censorship?
fuck off
Heh. Censoring of censorship!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we need to worry about a shortage of idiots to laugh at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This policy will make liberals very happy. Anything they don't like will be butthurt .
Conservatives as well, it's just a different source for the butthurt.