Eric Schmidt Proposes 'Hate Spell-Checker' For Radical and Terrorist Content (nytimes.com) 305
An anonymous reader writes: In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt has proposed the creation of 'tools' to stop or limit the spread of messages and content intended to recruit terrorists. Schmidt says: "We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice."
Schmidt does not enlarge on whether he is talking about AI-driven systems capable of understanding thought well enough to make value judgments on it, or of the problems involved in auto-censoring speech in order to promote his vision of a new rapport between cultures on the internet.
Schmidt does not enlarge on whether he is talking about AI-driven systems capable of understanding thought well enough to make value judgments on it, or of the problems involved in auto-censoring speech in order to promote his vision of a new rapport between cultures on the internet.
Go fuck yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Kindly go fuck yourself.
We have always been at war with oceana (Score:2)
PC double speak enforced by the minders' electronic eye.
Re:The ministery of truth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The ministery of truth (Score:5, Funny)
It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.
Re: (Score:2)
"You, sir, are the result of an illicit conjugation"
It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.
Especially if we include bad puns and grammar humor: "You, sir, be being the result of an illicit conjugation."
Hmm... actually come to think of it, we already have such a spell-checker. I eventually had to turn of iPhone's Autocorrect when it would refuse to allow me to use the word "its". It would always just change it to "it's". Yes, Apple, English does actually have a third-person possessive pronoun, so stop making me to look like an illiterate idiot when I forget to correct your "autocorrect." Per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Kindly go fuck yourself.
Indeed. Oddly enough, there's a patent troll hiding under this bridge. A company I once worked for was sued by this patent troll that has a patent over using spell check to also check/filter offensive words, and specifically not just profanity but culture-specific offensive slang. In this specific case, the patent actually seems to apply as written and intended: extending a spell checker to block sending of offensive material based on a curated list of offensive words and expressions.
It's a stupidly over
Re: (Score:3)
How about using the spell checker to just monitor the text without filtering it?
Re: (Score:2)
Dear OverlordQ,
I hope you're having a wonderful day so far. I am inquiring into whether it would be amenable for you, in the kindliest and gentlest way possible, to initiate forceful and vigorous lovemaking to the wonderful woman (a saint, really) who gave us, the world, the gift that is you.
With kindest regards to you and yours,
Halivar
Sent from my Android with PolitiCorrect(R)
He preaches hate speech and terror (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to imagine more dangerous hate speech in a democratic society than calling for the automatic suppression of free speech.
He seems to be openly and directly inciting a form of domestic terrorism against the population, to be performed by corporations and government. He's always had questionable ethics, but this latest installment is quite beyond belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OMG! It's already happening. He meant to say "fuck yourself with a 10-foot rusty pipe wrapped in barbed wire and smeared with Habanero peppers", but it was auto-corrected. Authorization: section 5, quoting for demonstration purposes. Signed, Director section 5, unit 3, December 8, 2015.
p.s., I'm not sure how long that last hack will actually work. Grabbed the test sections and units off 4chan this morning.
Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
But will it filter out Trump supporters? He seems to be full of hate, and lots of people are terrified of him.
Besides, Trump has a way higher chance of messing up your life than some puny terrorist in some far-away desert.
Re: (Score:2)
So what Schmidt is saying is that he wants to "close up the internet in some way" [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While certainly true, I'm actually engaged in a project right this very minute (I'm just taking a break from getting things set up) where I'm going to do an entire online bit without spending a single penny of my own money. I'm not even going to host it on my own. I'll put up donations and anyone wishing to donate will get to help decide where any profits go (or probably just all donations as I really don't need the money but I want it to be self-funding if it escalates) so long as they go to a charitable c
Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? Seriously? He really doesn't recognize the full implications of what he's proposing? Time to drag out my favorite passage from Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons":
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, fascists and fanatics want to censor things.
Either because people don't agree with your politics, or your religion, or your choice of text editor, or flavor of ice cream.
I consider people who want to resort to censorship to be essentially morally bankrupt assholes.
But then, this is Eric Schmidt. So I already considered him one.
I cringe at how readily Western society is prepared to become unhinged and start throwing away our freedoms in order to claim to be protecting our freedoms.
Beware the guy who wants to cut through such things in order to achieve their agenda. Because in the end they'll stop at nothing and utterly fail to see the problems they're creating.
I don't want to live in a world where some asshole billionaire is the arbiter of what can and can't be said.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, fascists and fanatics want to censor things.
Either because people don't agree with your politics, or your religion, or your choice of text editor, or flavor of ice cream.
Now you're just talking crazy talk; everybody knows that vanilla flavor is best.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Mint chocolate chip is the best.
And vim is the best text editor.
I propose we censor any speech which criticizes mint chocolate chip ice cream or which advances non-vi-style editors.
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This will work until governments start using it to censor speech that most people feel should be heard. Then the service will collapse and be replaced by something that is more free.
People need to understand that if you don't like what someone is saying, the way to stop them isn't to censor them or limit their speech, it's to use your own free speech to tell everyone why they're wrong. Suppressing speech does nothing to changes the hearts and minds of those who might agree with it and only serves to make that person appear a victim of your oppression, no matter how pure your motives may be. If you want to shut down terrorist groups like ISIS on social media, the best way to do so is to ridicule them. Who wants to join a group that's a complete laughingstock?
Re: (Score:2)
"This will work until governments start using it to censor speech that most people feel should be heard"
The US government is already using these tactics to censor discussion about people they really don't like, like Snowden or Manning. Claiming the subjects to be "state secrets".
Re: (Score:3)
johanw, your post looked kind of weird.. here let me copy/paste:
The ## ########## is already using these tactics to %enhance% discussion about people they really don't like, like ####### or #######. Claiming the subjects to be "##### #######"
Not sure what you were trying to say, but I'm certain it was important...
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. If you want to combat ISIS, you need to give clear and thorough critiques of sharia, and radical islam. Tamping down on "anti-muslim speech" or "pro-sharia speech" isn't the answer - having a robust marketplace of ideas is.
Who knows, maybe one day islam will have its reformation period, and violent jihadis will be just as embarrassing to them as the Inquisition is to catholics.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to combat Isis you need to give voices to assholes who are muslim. This teaches non-muslims that if a muslim says something you don't like it does not instantly turn him into a terrorist. And it teaches muslims that they're not just represented by peace-loving hippies who certainly don't want to upset anyone and love everyone so much.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hilarious example, given the context.
The only Catholics that are embarrassed by the Inquisition are the ones that never learned why there was one in the first place. In case you need a hint to get started, ask yourself what had been happening in Spain for the ~700 years prior.
The Crusades are much the same. They weren't just a random Christian rampage out of the blue, but a response to something external. In the case of the Crusades, about 400 years worth of that something.
Perhaps you've been talking to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a (bad) Catholic, and while certainly the Inquisition wasn't particularly *odd* at the time and place it happened, that doesn't mean I'm not embarrassed by it.
Having a broader contextual understanding of the horrors of various religious persecutions and wars doesn't make them any less embarrassing. Yes, Uncle Bob may be retarded, but watching him drool and hump the couch is still embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
it's to use your own free speech to tell everyone why they're wrong.
That doesn't actually work. Just look at all the extremist stuff that's become popular with the ubiquity of the internet: far right-wing "press" here in the US, and the rise of ISIS in the middle east. Telling people they're wrong just doesn't work; people have confirmation bias, they read something that agrees with their preconceived notions, and pushes them even farther, and they ignore anything that opposes that viewpoint. It's even
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this really inevitable? I think man can not live without conflict. It's not the system that's broken but the people. It seems that wars are inevitable and all we can do is try to survive them because at the end of the day people are just people. You can't live in peace if people wont let you.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you think the government should censor the 'far right-wing "press"' (as if there were such a thing)? If you were actually able to do that, just what do you think conservatives would do when they got back into power? And who could blame them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying anything should be censored; that's obviously a double-edged sword. I'm pointing out that the democratization of communication that the internet has brought us has had some very negative side effects. I don't think it's possible to put that genie back into the bottle.
Letâ(TM)s give up on academic freedom (Score:2)
This sort of thing is coming whether you like it or not. Freedom of speech is the freedom to oppress, and it's headed for the dustbin of history. Not accompanied by wailing and gnashing of teeth, but to thunderous applause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the crowd that wants the First Amendment cancelled, and the crowd that wants the Second Amendment cancelled, are the same crowd.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly, no:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]
Strange how so many fans of the First Amendment forget that there's more to it than freeze peach.
Re: (Score:3)
Strange how so many fans of the First Amendment forget that there's more to it than freeze peach.
How we gonna get whirled peas than?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Informative)
Donald Trump was asked for clarification on an important point: He says US citizens who are Muslims and traveling abroad should also be barred from entering the country.
Let's go over that tricky First Amendment one more time for good measure:
Now, do you really believe it would be constitutional or right in any shape or form to prohibit US citizens from re-entering the country based only on their religion? If you're unsure, read the text of the 1st Am again.
Re: (Score:3)
Donald Trump was asked for clarification on an important point: He says US citizens who are Muslims and traveling abroad should also be barred from entering the country.
Oddly enough, it appears that he said the exact opposite of that. "I have Muslim friends, Greta, and they're wonderful people. But there's a tremendous section and cross-section of Muslims living in our country who have tremendous animosity," he told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. "It does not apply to people living in the country, except we have to be vigilant."
Re: (Score:3)
Would it really surprise you if Donald Trump said two opposite things?
Re: (Score:2)
Would it really surprise you if Donald Trump said two opposite things?
To be honest, yes. Because he says what is on his mind, and he doesn't often change his mind.
But this is not Trump saying two opposite things. It was somebody saying Trump said one thing but Trump actually said the opposite.
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:4, Informative)
Except on immigration, abortion, Planned Parenthood, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian refugees, gun control, taxing the wealthy, Social Security, Hillary Clinton, and even his party affiliation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
I'd say that Donald Trump changes his mind fairly often, if you take him by his words.
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:4, Informative)
When you say someone has "changed their mind" you are suggesting some sort of thought has gone on to form the basis of an opinion, and then something has happened to alter the situation, and after further thought, their opinion has changed.
Trump just opens his mouth and lets loose with what half baked notion he's just thought of, that he thinks people want to hear. And then the next day he does the same. There is no guarantee of, or even effort towards, consistency.
His only constant is how brilliant and rich you need to know he is.
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Right and Left love to abridge speech, just different angles of it.
Nobody remembers the "Fairness Doctrine", and yet it keeps getting promoted by the left to quash the free speech rights of people they disagree with. By "Fairness" the left means "Hey, we can't compete in the world of ideas, freely expressed, lets limit the other side by making it about "fairness".
While the right typically targets specific kinds of speech, the left has pretty much declared war on any speech that isn't their version of "correct" (aka Politically Correct). They gleefully are willing to shout down with hate filled speech anyone that disagrees with them.
They will deny a permit for the KKK to rally, but are all for "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" and "Burn this bitch down" (Inciting to riot). Why? Because they support the cause in one case, and oppose it in another. This is exactly the same as those on the Right that do the exact same thing.
So if your point was that only Right Wingers are against free speech, you are sadly mistaken. The left is filled with people who hate free speech and see it as a danger to their socialist agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you realize that there are things in the First Amendment besides "free speech"?
Re: (Score:3)
You could also say that the right to religious freedom is really the right to free thought, which for most people precedes free speech. Except apparently for Donald Trump, for whom thought rarely precedes speech.
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:5, Informative)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. [cornell.edu]
Just search the page for "Whenever" for the money shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's really debatable. Here's a right-wing conservative telling you why (and I can't believe I'm actually linking to National Review):
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
And here are a bunch of top legal and constitutional scholars arguing both ways:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/... [wsj.com]
So it's not nearly as cut and dried as you would think.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the NRO article carefully you'll see Geraghty is basing his opinion not on the constitution, but what he thinks the founding fathers would have thought of the plan. You'd be laughed out of law school for making an argument that weak.
This is far more cut and dried than people are trying to make it. We have SCOTUS plenary power case law that leaves these kinds of tests entirely in the hands of Congress. That is right in the text. It's always possible the current court could make up a new set
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, law schools have a word to describe such an argument. It's called "originalist", and it very much involves what "the founding fathers would have thought of the plan".
Now, you want to address the arguments in the second link, where actual top constitutional
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what an originalist is. The originalist argument says the text should be interpreted as understood by the people who ratified it. What Jefferson and Monroe thought is far less important than the actual words on the paper as they would have been understood by an educated person in 1787. The people who voted on it were
Re: (Score:2)
There are several facets of the first amendment, and different crowds want one or more facets cancelled at various times for various reasons. It's the beauty of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
If they cancel one do the others shuffle up, or will there be a gap? It's all very confusing. Perhaps they should just give them names like "the one about beer" or "the one about darkies voting".
Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure where you find the pro 2nd anti 1st crowd. I see the opposite in terms of who attempts to undermine and want's to cancel the First Amendment. Mainly the same people that want Government spying on them so anti 4th amendment, and believe that the only way to be safe is by living inside the government fist so anti 2nd. Politicians tend to swing to which ever way the wind blows, but mainly toward pro censorship anti gun, because it improves people's dependency on their aspirations.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment has many clauses within. A lot of those pro-second people are strictly opposed to the establishment clause - they believe that it is the duty of government to promote Christianity above all other religions, always has been, and they won't let the dirty liberals insult good Americans by trying to force Christ out of government policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't know what's in the First Amendment, do you? Here, let me give you the entire text:
See that? The entire 1stAm. Free speec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to a citation for that? His campaign put out a statement saying that yes, it would include US citizens who were Muslim.
Remember, the religious freedom clause is the very first one mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It was the reason European pilgrims came to the US in the first place (and why they were called "pilgrims"), so they were very very careful about spelling out that government religious
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the Popular Front of Judea, nobody likes him.
The crab has three watches... (Score:2)
Any censorship has to be effective against every person, ever. But people are pretty clever [wikipedia.org]
I for one welcome (Score:3)
our hysterical corporate overlords.
This Muslim hysteria is turning out to be the best serous action and comedy on in one popcorn flick ever.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump hysteria is even better. People are going to start jumping out of buildings at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
This Muslim hysteria is turning out to be the best serous action and comedy on in one popcorn flick ever.
Yellow bodily fluids? Eeeew!
Re: (Score:2)
Haifa and Khalid Blow Up White Castle - two lifelong friends self-radicalize and quest to suicide bomb a white castle but are thwarted by the New Jersey turnpike system.
Brilliant Idea (Score:2)
He's on to something.
But rather than a simple 'hate checker' that could suggest alernatives, why not go the whole hog.
CLIPPY: "I notice you are talking hate on the internet. Do you need help? [Yes] [Obviously]"
Kind of redundant (Score:2)
The NSA already is keyword searching with Echelon and probably has their snooping services in Google already. I suppose if you encrypted it with a non-compromised encryption they wouldn't be able to get at it as easy, but you'd have to get that spell-check into every app and the terrorists would just use something else that is not compromised.
Videos and chat don't motivate many.... (Score:2)
If ISIS wants to survive, it has to pay a livable wage [mirror.co.uk] like anyone else... We can drop the religious bullshit any time now...
Good luck with that (Score:2)
China tries to do this this to an extent with their Great Firewall.
They fail by a very large extent.
What should be done is that commercial entities that emulate RTLMC over the air should have their licenses pulled. All this needs is a slight change to the Communications Act of 1934.
Hate sells, but you're not allowed to make money with it on public spectrum. Do it elsewhere. Go suck a lemon, Roger Ailes.
--
BMO
They would use metaphors (Score:2)
Eric Schmidt is a fat cat honky white trash (Score:2)
and a cracker too. He is The Man, and the Man is keeping us down
False positive. (Score:3)
How to differentiate hate speech and a discussion of hate speech. This is the same issue as the method that tried to censor pornographic images by using skin colour. Too many non-pornographic images, such as medical drawings, were censored.
Re: (Score:2)
If human beings can differentiate between the two, computers will be able to do the same eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually is a very long time. Computers will be able to figure out everything "eventually". What we are talking about is what is possible now.
Google just wants to target terrorists with ads (Score:4, Funny)
"Looking for devout women who will treat you like a caliph? Visit maskedhotties.com"
"Have you or a loved one contracted lung disease while training in the desert to be an ISIS warrior? Go to mesothelioma-kills-killers.com for information on receiving remuneration for your illness.
start with yourself (Score:3)
I'd be a lot more open to this creep's plan to censor everyone else if Google-owned YouTube wasn't the host of most every jihadi recruiting video ever made, many posted by specially designated terrorist entities which Google is forbidden by law to work with, under penalty of an ugly fine which is apparently never applied to the well connected. If a music company doesn't like the background song in a baby's first birthday video, it gets pulled so fast there is a whooshing noise as electrons rush in to fill the digital gap, but if someone complains that YouTube is in violation of the actual damn law against doing business with a specially designated terrorist entity, some YouTube employee will tell you that they have received your complaint, then do nothing.
So I have zero interest in this hypocrite being allowed to limit what I do or type onine while he sucks in ad dollars from scumbags watching innocent people get their heads hacked off.
Slippery slope... (Score:2)
Sure, you'll find islamic hate. You'll find christian hate. You'll find anti-gay hate.
But what's going to happen to all the SJWs who use violent rhetoric? Or the Jeremiah Wrights preaching that #blacklivesmatter?
Eventually, the only people left on the web will be Mormons and Buddhists.
This Perfect Day (Score:2)
Another thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
We wouldn't even be discussing this if speech like TRUMP's gets a total fucking pass like it's been getting in the US media, outside of special interest shows like Maddow.
Critical journalism in the US is largely fucking dead in the mainstream. Everyone is afraid they're going to lose their precious 'access' if they ask the tough questions and call people like TRUMP out on their bullshit.
Things like "The Interview" over at the BBC do not exist at all over here.
It's despicable. You're not journalists anymore. You're PR agents and 'entertainment.' Fuck off.
--
BMO
Will it censor Christian terrorists too? (Score:2)
One possible limitation (Score:2)
I'd rather a spell checker for facebook memes (Score:2)
I have yet to see a single "image with text on it" facebook meme that didn't have spelling and/or grammatical errors. One thing that tells me for sure is that the generation that grew up with cell phones in their hands doesn't freaking know how to spell.
an alternative proposal (Score:2)
Denying Free Speech Checker (Score:3)
Can we also have it check for posts that support denying people their free-speech rights?
Eric Schmidt is an idiot (Score:3)
Additionally anyone can establish a code where one phrase means something else entirely; "I'm walking the dog in Central Park at 10:00am" translates to "I'm placing the IED in Central Park and detonating it at 10:00am". Good luck writing code that contextually gleans the true meaning of the former.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it was adults who invented leet, and it was back when everyone was still using BBS's. By the way, you are on my lawn.
YouTube (Score:2)
I [CENSORED] [CENSORED] This! (Score:4, Funny)
I [CENSORED] [CENSORED] when they [CENSORED] censor my [CENSORED] [CENSORED] speech aimed at [CENSORED]!
Signed,
[CENSORED] Engineer
This message was screened for hurtful language for your well being. Have a nice day!
EVIL (Score:2)
That is way in Evil territory Eric. Seize and desist. Those tools can go after anything anyone is offended by or worried about. They are a proposal for mass online censorship. They play right into the hands of enemies of freedom everywhere. That the executive chairman of Google, no less, would float such is one of the most terrifying things I have encountered. What the hell is the matter with you?
Turing creative work into junk (Score:2)
In the Soviet Union names, books, sentences, paragraphs, pictures, individuals also disappeared from art, culture, history and new editions of books.
Thanks to a big US brand that always enjoyed the full protections of the US Constitution books and thought will now be "corrected" on a per decade or month or weekly whim of a select few in the private sector? A multi national private sector with deep traditional link
Took Subject the wrong way (Score:2)
Subversion (Score:3)
This is America. If I want to include the words radical terrorism nuclear bomb the white house kill the president in every one of my messages, then I will. As should everyone.
No surprise (Score:2)
Hypocrisy much? (Score:3)
The same guy who was hammering on the importance of free speech in defense of his contributions to the Proposition 8 (anti-gay-marriage law in California) campaign is now proposing a means of automated censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't recruit a corpse.
On the other hand, if you are going to wage war then at least try to be good at it. Try to accomplish your objectives. Otherwise, you are just spreading death and destruction for no reason at all.
Motive and intent does make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
What the catholic church did to Galileo was, if you keep your head down we leave you alone and you can think what you want. And he didn't want to keep his head down so they had to assert their authority. Mob rules.
Re: (Score:2)
With Schmidt you know he's all for surveillance and will remain so. Trump can change his mind anytime.