The EU Approves Sweeping Draft Regulations On Social Media Giants (openaccessgovernment.org) 105
"The European Union took a significant step Thursday toward passing legislation that could transform the way major technology companies operate," reports the Washington Post, "requiring them to police content on their platforms more aggressively and introducing new restrictions on advertising, among other provisions...."
"The legislation is the most aggressive attempt yet to regulate big tech companies as the industry comes under greater international scrutiny." The version approved Thursday would force companies to remove content that is considered illegal in the country where it is viewed, which could be Holocaust denials in Germany or racist postings in France. And it would significantly shape how companies interact with users, allowing Europeans to opt out of targeted advertising more easily and prohibiting companies from targeting advertisements at children.... The legislation would also ban companies from employing deceptive tactics known as dark patterns to lure users to sign up or pay for services and products. And it would allow users to ask companies which personal characteristics, such as age or other demographic information, led them to be targeted with certain advertisements.
The two legislation bodies of the 27-nation bloc "are expected to debate the contents of the legislation for months before voting on a final version," the Post adds. But they add this a vote on "initial approval" of the legislation passed "overwhelmingly". "With the [Digital Services Act] we are going to take a stand against the Wild West the digital world has turned into, set the rules in the interests of consumers and users, not just of Big Tech companies and finally make the things that are illegal offline illegal online too," said Christel Schaldemose, the center-left lawmaker from Denmark who has led negotiations on the bill.
The Post adds this quote from Gianclaudio Malgieri, an associate professor of technology and law at the EDHEC Business School in France. "For the first time, it will not be based on what Big Tech decides to do," he said. "It will be on paper."
In fact, the site Open Access Government reports there were 530 votes for the legislation, and just 78 against (with 80 abstentions). "The Digital Services Act could now become the new gold standard for digital regulation, not just in Europe but around the world," they quote Schaldemose as saying, also offering more details on the rest of the bill: Algorithm use should be more transparent, and researchers should also be given access to raw data to understand how online harms evolve. There is also a clause for an oversight structure, which would allow EU countries to essentially regulate regulation. Violations could in future be punished with fines of up to 6% of a company's annual revenue....
The draft Bill is one half of a dual-digital regulation package. The other policy is the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which would largely look at tackling online monopolies.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader UpnAtom for sharing the story.
"The legislation is the most aggressive attempt yet to regulate big tech companies as the industry comes under greater international scrutiny." The version approved Thursday would force companies to remove content that is considered illegal in the country where it is viewed, which could be Holocaust denials in Germany or racist postings in France. And it would significantly shape how companies interact with users, allowing Europeans to opt out of targeted advertising more easily and prohibiting companies from targeting advertisements at children.... The legislation would also ban companies from employing deceptive tactics known as dark patterns to lure users to sign up or pay for services and products. And it would allow users to ask companies which personal characteristics, such as age or other demographic information, led them to be targeted with certain advertisements.
The two legislation bodies of the 27-nation bloc "are expected to debate the contents of the legislation for months before voting on a final version," the Post adds. But they add this a vote on "initial approval" of the legislation passed "overwhelmingly". "With the [Digital Services Act] we are going to take a stand against the Wild West the digital world has turned into, set the rules in the interests of consumers and users, not just of Big Tech companies and finally make the things that are illegal offline illegal online too," said Christel Schaldemose, the center-left lawmaker from Denmark who has led negotiations on the bill.
The Post adds this quote from Gianclaudio Malgieri, an associate professor of technology and law at the EDHEC Business School in France. "For the first time, it will not be based on what Big Tech decides to do," he said. "It will be on paper."
In fact, the site Open Access Government reports there were 530 votes for the legislation, and just 78 against (with 80 abstentions). "The Digital Services Act could now become the new gold standard for digital regulation, not just in Europe but around the world," they quote Schaldemose as saying, also offering more details on the rest of the bill: Algorithm use should be more transparent, and researchers should also be given access to raw data to understand how online harms evolve. There is also a clause for an oversight structure, which would allow EU countries to essentially regulate regulation. Violations could in future be punished with fines of up to 6% of a company's annual revenue....
The draft Bill is one half of a dual-digital regulation package. The other policy is the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which would largely look at tackling online monopolies.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader UpnAtom for sharing the story.
Need an "E-PUNCH" (Score:1)
Media Giants (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of focus on "social media" where people directly air their opinions and share any article they want (including garbage).
But no focus on the producers of the garbage: media companies in the pockets of politicians.
There are plenty of media companies posing as "news" these days that all they do is promote some political agenda. In fact, it's hard to come by "news" companies that actually produce news (minus the opinions, commentary and agenda).
But that same media is pointing government to "do something" about the conduit that promotes their garbage rather than themselves, the garbage producers.
Re: (Score:2)
It has always been this way. Every newspaper or TV network has an editorial line, every individual has a bias, even different countries have different values (and interests) that lead their media to see things in different ways.
It's not something that happens in the decadent times we're living, it's something that happened even before writing was invented. This is why it's important to listen
Re: (Score:2)
To refine that point:
No one *CAN* ever give you a really objective view of the facts.
It is literally impossible, though some approach closer than others. So if *you* want to get close to the facts, multiple different viewpoints are essential. This is a lot of work, and I'm only interested enough to do this in a few areas. So in the rest I try to be a bit (or more) uncertain. Personal investigation helps, but that is often inherently limited.
Re: Media Giants (Score:2)
A three-body gravitational problem cannot be solved, but we have good enough approximations to travel the galaxy.
The point is to prevent total BS--something akin to denying the reality of gravity, like Trump is still president--from overshadowing facts.
It is wrong for people to think Trump is still president. It is wrong for people to think that global warming is a hoax. It is wrong for people to think that vaccination is a conspiracy. If you cannot make make these moral judgments, then you are not operati
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
resulting in the extinction of more neutral media because there is no longer a market for it.
Excuse me. Exactly which yardstick do you measure that with?
"More Neutral Media" is 100% in the eyes of the beholder.
Re:Media Giants (Score:4, Interesting)
+1
The line between news and entertainment got intentionally blurred by the companies doing this. They want it to be classified as entertainment so they can say whatever to get clicks and views, but people want news.
There should be a content labeling law for information, kind of like ingredients and nutrition labels on food items. At the very least, a professional outlet (that has a business license) should be required to label a story or even individual parts of a story as fact, author's opinion, or entertainment.
A fact should have a citation next to it or in a footnote. If it turns out to be wrong, a retraction should be required. A quote from someone is also a fact (did they say that), so quotes need an additional label for the content of the quote itself -- is it a fact (citation required), author's opinion, or entertainment.
An author's opinion can be whatever they want, of course, but labeling it forces them to separate their opinions from the facts of the story.
Something labeled as entertainment should be a clear notice to readers or viewers not to take it seriously. This would be used a lot by satire sites, sensational magazines, late night shows, etc.
It would be useful if the information labeling stayed with the content as metadata when you copy and paste text from a web page, or forward a message on any social media, so people getting it will also be informed. Without metadata, the default label should probably be "unknown" so people understand they're not looking at original material (because if we had a law, then original material would have to be labeled).
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, it's anybody that thinks businesses should have some scruples. The news sites are just reporting on it.
I'd be most happy to see Facebook vanish entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
The press is not in the pocket of politicians, it is in the pocket of billionaires. Those same billionaires expect to be rewarded for having their newspapers support particular politicians.
There is already regulation for media companies. It's not something that the EU gets involved in much, it's down to member states. Arguably it might be better if there were EU wide rules. The EU is much less prone to the corruption that allows the owners of newspapers to get away with this stuff.
Rule by proxy (Score:3)
I see this as little more than realization that they can institute censorship by proxy, rather than have the bad publicity of formally announcing it. Congratulations - your speech will be essentially regulated by Google, Facebook, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations - your speech will be essentially regulated by Google, Facebook, etc... ...
Like it always has been
Re: Media Giants (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is much easier and lucrative to sue Facebook or Twitter than figuring out the real culprits.
The same with other "big government" action. Ask Apple to turn over master keys, tap into deep sea communication cables, and data mine all sources, often illegal, with no privacy policy or outside scrutiny. All for the "common good".
And now we are really moving into balkanized Internet fiefdoms. Every country will come up with a different list of "unacceptable" content. They would even be glad if people could not
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I expected more anti-left posts in here already, but probably not because it doesn't affect right-oriented Gods Own Country'ists as much.
What I think most opponents don't realise is that left "meta", or right "truth", are both affected by this, and there are more "sides" than that. There is more to it than "them" and "us", at least when it comes to nuances of people, and not just whatever end of the spectrum the various news sites are. Each social media side would have to accept the opposite views, and everything in between to be truly called Free Speech.
This is less of a problem on the international scene, where conspiracies are less believed in, but still an issue when the "loud minority" takes over the apparent narrative. There is nothing to fear, for those, though, as international court rulings are easily dismissed by local state courts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is more to it than "them" and "us"
The uneducated arrogant moronic masses in the US cannot think in terms more complex than "them" and "us". Hence they completely miss what is actually going on. They do not have the mental capacity to understand that.
Responsible for content... (Score:2)
From the article mentioned in the article (yes, I clicked twice to read ALL of it, how un-Slashdot!):
>> The proposals unveiled Tuesday would make major online platforms legally responsible for the content users post on their services, requiring companies to police abuse, misinformation and other legal violations far more actively than they do now.
This is exactly what a company like Facebook wants. It makes it almost impossible for others to enter the social media arena because of the amount of work in
Re: (Score:2)
Further, these policies are to be implemented by platforms that have more than x-million of users/subscribers, the start-ups will have a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
"Years to come" for FB is not an issue. They had that already anyways, regardless of these efforts. I disagree with your reasoning nonetheless. FB, etc. are international companies that hence need to cater to the lowest common denominator. That is a massive problem in itself. I predict that this is actually good for competition because it allows smaller networks that just do not operate locally (but are accessible) in, say, the US or EU or Russia, etc., to get out of censorship attempts there. Sure, this m
Dream On (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think 50% constitutes a monopoly, generally more like 70%, but I also tend to break the market into finer segment. So if only one company offers a service in some particular area, that is a monopoly, even if another company offers that service a block away.
EU government works (Score:3)
This is proof positive that the EU system works. Mandatory retirement at 65 is clearly clearing the EU parliament of the sort of fossils we have in the senate. Furthermore, the EU parliament is far more focused on accountability than on fundraising. The reasons the senate fossils won't act against tech are that 1) they don't understand tech and 2) they need tech's campaign donations.
The trolls will whine incessantly because these rules will take away the trolls' megaphones. The EU is correct to compare tech companies to broadcasters and it is correct in demanding that they exercise editorial discretion. Free speech does NOT translate to a right to have your BS go viral.
Will the US Congress ever act? No. Because they're fossils. Unlike Europe, the US has no structure to renew its leadership every generation. This American conservatism will eventually break the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has no mandatory retirement from political positions ...
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the clarification. Nevertheless, the EU parliament looks distinctly younger than the US Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should check the Finnish or New Zealand one :D
Especially also the cabinet. And the fact that a hige deal are women.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The point that must be made over and over again until people get it is that, in the context of capitalism, conservatism is a recipe for death. Capitalism is the engine of change. Regimes who oppose it--ie., conservative regimes--put their economies and societies on course for collapse. It's critical to have turnover in government. This was the point, once upon a time.
First example of 'fake news' promoted by media... (Score:3)
..NPR.
This one is very, very simple and clear.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18... [npr.org]
Nina Totenberg reported for NPR that 1) Judge Sotomayor was working remotely because Judge Gorsuch refused to wear a mask, despite that 2) Chief Justice Roberts wanted all the judges to wear masks.
Basically, portraying Gorsuch as an intransigent dick making work life harder for Sotomayor.
This launched a wide tirade against the "monster" Gorsuch across CNN, MSNBC, NYT and a host of, you know, 'independent' news organizations.
Turns out, not true in the slightest.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertai... [yahoo.com]
Gorsuch and Sotomayor jointly released a statement declaring their mutual surprise at the report, that it's expressly not true, and that though they disagree on many issues, they are colleagues and friends.
Further, Chief Justice Roberts also released a statement saying he had not asked anyone to mask up. https://twitter.com/andrew_chu... [twitter.com]
NPR editors issued mealy-mouth defense, asserting that the story was fundamentally true, just that Totenberg shouldn't have said Robert's 'asked' anyone, since he didn't. (But asserting that he implied the request.)
https://www.npr.org/sections/p... [npr.org]
This would seem an open and shut case about journalists lying to advance a narrative.
Shall we make it the first example of the EU's 'commitment to the truth online'?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long before those "hate speech" guidelines include criticism of sweeping new social policies? Free speech doesn't exist without "hate speech." An ultimately empty term to be defined by an ever-shrinking Overton window.
Re:No free speech in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
Free speech doesn't exist without "hate speech."
Yes it does.
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
How? Hate speech has no commonly accepted definition. In the UK, the only requirement is that somebody just has to say that they're offended by it in order for it to be considered a hate crime.
That basically means you can ban anything.
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
How? Hate speech has no commonly accepted definition. In the UK, the only requirement is that somebody just has to say that they're offended by it in order for it to be considered a hate crime.
That isn't true. The relevant law in the UK is section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [legislation.gov.uk]. It applies only where something is already a crime AND the court finds it is aggravated due to being sourced in hostility to a protected group. Nothing in it says or implies that it applies just because someone is offended by something.
Re: (Score:1)
OTOH, it is reported that in Britain truth is not a defense against slander or libel. This makes it quite unclear to me what is.
Re: (Score:1)
OTOH, it is reported that in Britain truth is not a defense against slander or libel. This makes it quite unclear to me what is.
Many many things are reported. It is a defence to an action for defamation [which coveres both slander and libel] for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true [legislation.gov.uk]
As a bonus that link also covers the other defences.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
How? Hate speech has no commonly accepted definition.
Of course it does: "Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"
The only people not accepting that definition are the haters.
In the UK, the only requirement is that somebody just has to say that they're offended by it in order for it to be considered a hate crime.
Citation needed...
('cos I've seen British TV and every single British TV presenter should be in chains according to you)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does: "Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"
There is no actual definition of what constitutes a religion or a race, and it says “such as” so does the list continue or not. What groups exactly are included
The position of the A.P.A. on whether it classifies pædophilia as a “sexual orientation” or not is also not that clear,
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez man, get a dictionary, all those words are defined and in cases where the law as formulated is unclear, a judge will decide how it should be interpreted. And I can assure you, he or she will not buy into arguments that some commonly used word is not clearly enough defined.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez man, get a dictionary, all those words are defined and in cases where the law as formulated is unclear, a judge will decide how it should be interpreted. And I can assure you, he or she will not buy into arguments that some commonly used word is not clearly enough defined.
He or she will listen to the arguments, then give his or her opinion.
The original concept of hate speech or crime has gone from the obvious like actual violence against people based on the victims subset of humanity, or the calls for violence against those people or threats directed at them, to some pretty nebulous stuff, that isn't very clear.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you didn't answer any o my quæstions about what is included in “such as”.
Do people actually think that laws about such vague concepts do not come down to whom the court personally likes more in case of a conflict?
Do you also believe that words such as “obscene” or “nudity” or “unacquainted person” have an actual clear definition when used in law?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does: "Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"
There is no actual definition of what constitutes a religion or a race,
That's because race is the ultimate social construct, something that doesn't really exist other in the minds of racists. I'll just note that the people who would call themselves woke are utterly obsessed with race. That makes them racist of course. And I can create a religion called Olsocism, and it would need to be accepted as a religion.
Now the original intent of the hate crime concept was to add a layer of punishment to people who say kill others based on the victim's skin color and culture, or the
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not hidden in plain sight. There are quite often court cases about it that hinge in pure semantics interpretations of the judge. A recent Dutch one came down to whether “Slavic” was a “race” or not; one in Australia whether “polyamory” was a “sexual orientation” or not.
These words have no definition whatsoever and court cases are decided on pure matters of semantics, not matters of facts.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not hidden in plain sight. There are quite often court cases about it that hinge in pure semantics interpretations of the judge. A recent Dutch one came down to whether “Slavic” was a “race” or not; one in Australia whether “polyamory” was a “sexual orientation” or not.
These words have no definition whatsoever and court cases are decided on pure matters of semantics, not matters of facts.
If a man or a woman commit the same action, who is more likely to be found guilty? And if both are found guilty, do they get equal sentences?
Here's some govmint stats: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virt... [ojp.gov] .
That is my point - the disparity has nothing to do with individual judges. It has to do with the trends. And when I can reference government information - it's about as in plain sight as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that those are issues of fact finding and sentencing
In the case of these laws, the facts are not in dispute, what the suspect has said is openly known, what is in despite of the semantics to call it.
If all parties stipulate that the suspect fired the bullet, there is no semantics argument any more about whether it constitutes a killing.
There are a great many legal situations, and this is certainly one of them, where the lawyers on both sides, having access to all the facts cannot say who w
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that those are issues of fact finding and sentencing
In the case of these laws, the facts are not in dispute, what the suspect has said is openly known, what is in despite of the semantics to call it.
If all parties stipulate that the suspect fired the bullet, there is no semantics argument any more about whether it constitutes a killing.
There are a great many legal situations, and this is certainly one of them, where the lawyers on both sides, having access to all the facts cannot say who will win in advance. These legal experts that know the law and the facts cannot tell what the judge will rule. — Because these are issues of neither fact nor law; they are issues of semantics and in practice simply whom the court likes more on a personal level.
Does this make the judge a misogynist, being that he or she uses different systems of punishment for women versus men? As in not equal under the law? Or does it point to a fact that judges are misandrysts, shown that they find it a proper thing to punish punish men for longer periods including issuing a penalty of the ultimate cancellation - that being death, to men far more than women?
That being said - do you support women being punished far less than men for the same crimes? Explain - using the example o
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, I was simply saying that this is an entirely different problem from the other. The problem you pose is a bias in factfinding and sentencing; the problem I pose exists when facts are not in dispute. In the case you posit the law is not vague, the court is simply flawed.
Secondly, I do not believe people are judged on their gender as much as they claim; they're simply looking for gender as the immediate proxy. I believe people are judged based on traits that correlate with gender at best. — I sp
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, I was simply saying that this is an entirely different problem from the other. The problem you pose is a bias in factfinding and sentencing;
Okay, allow me the option of removing it from male versus female. Let us take the disparity between People of African descent with dark skin pigmentation.
Secondly, I do not believe people are judged on their gender as much as they claim; they're simply looking for gender as the immediate proxy.
Do you believe that African descent people are treated 100 percent equally? Do you believe that they are not judged based on their skin color and original culture?
I believe people are judged based on traits that correlate with gender at best.
Ah - but do you believe that is in any way an expression of equality? See, that's part of why I ask. Are women thought of as less capable of containing their emotions that they receive lesser se
Re: (Score:2)
A recent Dutch one came down to whether âoeSlavicâ was a âoeraceâ or not; one in Australia whether âoepolyamoryâ was a âoesexual orientationâ or not.
These words have no definition whatsoever and court cases are decided on pure matters of semantics, not matters of facts.
And what has the first part to do with the other? Who cares if Slaciv is a race or not? Or if âoepolyamoryâ was a âoesexual orientationâ or not?
No one cares. If you call out to burn
Re: (Score:2)
Because that was part of the definition provided.
So again, the definition is meaningless and vague, and is not actually followed in practice but people just go by “gut feeling”. It's yet another case of trying to write down “gut feeling” in laws, resulting into immeasurably vague nonsense, then ignoring the written text and simply going by “gut feeling” anyway.
No man will also ever be convicted in the U.K. for saying “burn all pædophiles”.
Re: (Score:2)
He would if he actually goes out and burns one.
Re: (Score:2)
Which isn't speech now is it.
Re: (Score:2)
(facepalm)
What you're doing also has a legal definition, it's called "willful ignorance".
Re: (Score:2)
If those definitions are not clear for you, I suggest to consult a dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're simply vague concepts that are also rooted in pseudoscience, which is why they're vague.
There is no actual objective test or definition and every dictionary will come with more vague terms and different courts and rulings will disagree with each other on whether something constitutes a “religion” or “race” or not.
Do you really think I don't speak English? Or perhaps one should simply concede that the English language has many vague muddy words, and this is especially comm
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter .
If I say "kill all blacks" then that's hate speech even if it has no basis in genetics.
Re: (Score:2)
In Finland, no one needs to be offended. it's enough if the prosecutor thinks that, at least in theory, someone might feel offended. Offended, if someone would see, hear or smell certain message...
Re: (Score:2)
State prosecutor had also claimed that mentioning a specific profession of "goat herders " would somehow offend the world's "goat herders" by making them feel belittled. The politician defended his views by stating that, indeed he considers the coat herders profession to be equally valuable as is the state prosecutor's profession.
Ah yes, the modern woke practice of being offended for other groups.
Would she be as offended and quick to go to hate crime status as say, us here on slashdot making comments about nerds living in their mom's basement, or claiming the last time they saw a vagina was when they were born? Or how about frustrated women complaining about "Small dick energy" of men they don't like?
This is an increasing problem, when people have the utter conceit of becoming offended for other people, who are probably not off
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it does: "Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"
The only people not accepting that definition are the haters.
So many issues with that definition. How do you define hate? is me claiming i don't like you hate speech? and what about art? e.g. comedy or otherwise? As you start to unpack things, you quickly realize how incredibly important the first amendment is. From wikipedia,
While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.
people much smarter than me have furiously defend the first amendment and for very good reasons.
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like you're one of the haters
And this is exactly why we have we first amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're one of the haters. It's a very straightforward law - Don't incite violence or prejudice against people based on their social or ethnic groups.
So now tell me - Is the KAM trend on Tiktok hate speech? Here - https://www.distractify.com/p/... [distractify.com]
Defend that. Am I a hater - note I am a heterosexual white male. Is this a joke or parody? What is your analysis if a white male posted something similar? Sounds like you should be aginst the KAM trend - but iit is allowed, and I'd love to hear you claim that the women posting that are doing this by definition hate speech. Or it it like Orwell's Animal farm where some people are more equal than others?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think it is hate speech then call a court and let the judges decide: simple.
And I most certainly do not check link you feel offended about.
Re: (Score:2)
You've completely missed the point of this story. None of this will go before a judge. It'll be programmed into some algorithm and applied indiscriminately.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you missed the point. It gets to a judge, but promoted by an algorithm ... or human click.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets to a judge, but promoted by an algorithm ... or human click.
You're funny. Ever considered doing comedy?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define hate?
It's a common English word. Hint: Try a dictionary.
is me claiming i don't like you hate speech?
No, because you don't know my skin color, religion, sexuality or anything else about me that would fall under "hate speech".
Re: (Score:2)
is me claiming i don't like you hate speech?
No, it is not. Why would it?
Are you really that damn stupid???
the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.
That is wrong. The first amendment only is valid in talks between citizens and the government. The government can not randomly prosecute one, for no reason.
If you run in a town in USA and shout: "burn all jews!" you will quickly
Re: (Score:2)
How? Hate speech has no commonly accepted definition.
Of course it does: "Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"
The only people not accepting that definition are the haters.
Is the plethora of TikToks of women saying " I hate all men" hate speech? That would fit the exact definition of hate speech. Can those women be arrested and charged with a hate crime?
Now what if a man says, "I hate all women". The woke crowd throws the word misogyny around for simple disagreement with a female now. Misogyny is hatred of women, therefore anything a man says that garners the accusation is by the definition a hate crime.
The problem with the modern concept of hate crime is it has been ext
Re: (Score:2)
" I hate all men" hate speech? That would fit the exact definition of hate speech. Can those women be arrested and charged with a hate crime?
Mo it does not fit the definition at all. No idea what your stupid agenda is: read the damn law and stop your bollocks arguments.
But their expression that they hate all men does fit the definition.
No it does not.
Because they very specifically say the hate all men.
No, that is not the definition. They are free to hate whom ever they want. And are free to express that a
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, the only requirement is that somebody just has to say that they're offended by it in order for it to be considered a hate crime.
That is bollocks. An insult is not hate speech. What hate speech is: is well defined.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you can't make your point without blaming an entire race of people, or without inciting violence, then the problem is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you can't make your point without blaming an entire race of people, or without inciting violence, then the problem is you.
I agree, but I am concerned that some people seem to have a free pass on inciting hatred against specific groups. I agree that those who have that seemingly free pass are part of the problem. They appear to desire cruelty to beget cruelty. I know - Doctor Who.
One of my Favorite Capaldi Doctor speeches was this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] And it had some important lessons to teach.
Re: (Score:2)
So called "hate speech" is a very loosely defined notion.
No it isn't.
JK Rawling was attacked for "hate speech"
Who by? Maybe some ignorant, over-entitled SJWs but certainly not a judge in a court of law.
Re: (Score:2)
LMGTFY: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I said "generally accepted definition", not the "definition found on Google". US courts do not accept such definition
Which part of that definition do YOU not accept?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It already does. Mandatory vaccination is certainly a "sweeping new social policy". Criticizing it is already tantamount to hate speech in many peoples minds.
The only other option is what then? Remember the swine flu here the the US when the Federal's choice was to sit back and watch? Remember state police sometimes against the governor's wishes, going to malls and stopping people of color from entering because someone "heard" that they are spreading swine flu? Or the demands that office buildings be protected from super spreaders and demanded people be tested to protect the good people's liberty even though the only test was for a high temperature? With no regu
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, protecting society from a bunch of ignorant anti-vaxxers is a new social policy. So is Medicare and Social Security. I expect you'll be wanting to renounce those when you reach your dotage. In fact, you could planning now for Ma and Pa Kettle to move in with you; you have room at your place, right? And do not forget to save for their medications, I hear drug prices from the sainted American private sector are to die for.
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to hard to justify mandates. This kind of thing is exactly what has the anti-vaxxers up in arms. When a government which lets it citizens be profit centers for the medical industrial complex suddenly starts giving a shit about the health of citizens, people become suspicious. They see that the government is trying way to hard and wonder what the
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I saw the title "The EU Approves Sweeping Draft Regulations On Social Media Giants", I was naively hoping for a split second that thank God,
Re: (Score:2)
"Free speech" is a privilege between you and your government.
Not a right for newspapers to spill bullshit on the masses.
How long before those "hate speech" guidelines include criticism of sweeping new social policies?
Forever.
As what is hate speech and what is not: is written in the laws. Ooosp, must be surprising for you that we have laws in the EU.
Re:No free speech in Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
The version approved Thursday would force companies to remove content that is considered illegal in the country where it is viewed, which could be Holocaust denials in Germany or racist postings in France.
I would give the countries that wish to censor information that their people can view an API that allows them to flag any content they wish to block. Put the onus back on them. The tech companies could then check the location of the viewer and, if appropriate, block the content and display a message "This information is being blocked by request of your government. If you want to know what is being displayed on this page, ask someone in a free society to relay it to you."
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a way to display a warning for flagged content ("This message may contain hate speech") and require the user to make extra clicks to see the content.
Like many platforms are already doing.
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Way easier for the platform to make an API and flag feature available, and let anyone sign up to create a content moderation account, add one orore moderators under that account, and then let those moderators search for whatever keywords they want, flag content however they want, etc. And then individual users could subscribe to see the flags by the moderation organization (s) that they want to "follow", so flagged content would appear behind a notice that says why it's flagged (and by which organization)
Re: No free speech in Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that if something is illegal, the law should apply to online behavior same as in person behavior, but generally the law enforcement happens after an incident, not before. So the question is, what happens after someone writes some hate speech, or something else that is undesirable or illegal in some situations?
And I think the proposal covered that -- in a country where certain kind of speech is illegal, someone has to scan content and apply an "illegal in country X" tag. Right now it's the platfor
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how other legal requirements work. Companies are expected to remove material like child abuse images themselves. If they post a message directing users to seek out child abuse images, they will get in some serious trouble. Same goes for other kinds of illegal material, like banned drug sales, prostitution, state secrets etc.
The onus will always be on the tech company. In the EU, companies operate because we let them. We decide the rules and they must follow them. It's not like the US where corpor
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. You seem to think that laws should be easily enforceable or that somehow the government should help you to police your platform. LOL.
*YOU* build a social media platform that allows anyone to say, post and publish anything and make lots of money in the process? You are the one to enforce it to be within the law. You can't? You'll get sued into oblivion and you will be found liable.
Re: (Score:2)
So the chances or left-wing bureaucrats ruling is pretty slim.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's refreshing to hear someone not afraid that global warning will remove him from a job, cause tropical diseases to migrate into his area, ready to laugh as the brush and forest fires in his future, able to exist with base of the food chain destroyed, etc.
Let me guess, you dress up in those Halloween fatigues so valued by right-wingers who think they are living in movie.
By the way, your ancestors were doing Neanderthal women about 50 million years ago, and that was before beer-glasses were invented.