Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years (inverse.com) 471
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: After a question from Senator John Thune (R-SD) about why the public should believe that Facebook was earnestly working towards improving privacy, Zuckerberg essentially responded by saying that things are different now. Zuckerberg said that the platform is going through a "broad philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company." "We need to now take a more proactive view at policing the ecosystem," he said. In part, Zuckerberg was talking about hate speech and the various ways his platform has been used to seed misinformation. This prompted Thune to ask what steps Facebook was taking to improve its ability to define what is and what is not hate speech.
"Hate speech is one of the hardest," Zuckerberg said. "Determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. You need to understand what is a slur and whether something is hateful, and not just in English..." Zuckerberg said that the company is increasingly developing AI tools to flag hate speech proactively, rather than relying on reactions from users and employees to flag offensive content. But according to the CEO, because flagging hate speech is so complex, he estimates it could take five to 10 years to create adequate A.I. "Today we're just not there on that," he said. For now, Zuckerberg said, it's still on users to flag offensive content. "We have people look at it, we have policies to try and make it as not subjective as possible, but until we get it more automated there is a higher error rate than I'm happy with," he said.
"Hate speech is one of the hardest," Zuckerberg said. "Determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. You need to understand what is a slur and whether something is hateful, and not just in English..." Zuckerberg said that the company is increasingly developing AI tools to flag hate speech proactively, rather than relying on reactions from users and employees to flag offensive content. But according to the CEO, because flagging hate speech is so complex, he estimates it could take five to 10 years to create adequate A.I. "Today we're just not there on that," he said. For now, Zuckerberg said, it's still on users to flag offensive content. "We have people look at it, we have policies to try and make it as not subjective as possible, but until we get it more automated there is a higher error rate than I'm happy with," he said.
Hate Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is there such an emphasis on this as opposed to any other type of "bad" speech? What makes hate speech inherently worse than offensive, but non-hateful speech, and how do you know if I hate you or not?
Re:Hate Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't. I've seen video games ban the word "jew" simply because somebody decided that a word filter was needed because the word is often used pejoratively. I found out recently I'm 2% Ashkenazi jew, and I wouldn't be surprised if some AI caught the word "nazi jew" out of that. Worse, is that hate speech is a constantly evolving thing, and the words and double-speak deliberately change on a routine basis. This is why hate speech rules are so fucking stupid: Since they're going after a constantly moving target, it's impossible to legislate or filter without making deliberately vague rules, and you can easily break said rules without realizing it at all. And how can you be expected to know that something is illegal when there isn't even a written law against it?
This gives the government plenty of room to get away with abuse. If you don't already have a reason to arrest somebody, you can just create one on the spot. The UK already does this.
Re: (Score:2)
"hey bro, some idiot called me a n*gger other day, can you believe that?"
(something you can't even post at full on slashdot)
Re: (Score:2)
/sarcasm Considering you are nagging about it, yeah, you are a nagger.
Re: (Score:2)
The same neural networks that are supposed to translate from a language to other without flaws?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the government we're talking about (Score:2)
If you want a good idea of why hate speech is a bad thing go read Bruce Sterling's Distraction [amazon.com]. Or just consider that old quote about a meddlesome priest. [wikipedia.org] The right words delivered to the right nut job can do scary things. I don't blame Facebook for not wanting to be a party to that.
Re: (Score:2)
I found out recently I'm 2% Ashkenazi jew, and I wouldn't be surprised if some AI caught the word "nazi jew" out of that.
Does that mean Scunthorpe is going to be purged from the internet?
Re:Hate Speech (Score:4, Informative)
That number is rounded, but it doesn't matter because you're being retarded. You're never actually 50% of anything, let alone 25% or 12.5%. Sure, parent and child actually share 50% on *average*, but in reality, this is rarely the case. In reality, the further down in successive generations you go, the percentage of shared DNA diverges greater from simple math like that. So saying "you're 6 generations away at that amount" is a pretty dumb assumption to make. I understand why this wouldn't make any sense to you. After all, in your family the shared DNA percentage increases every successive generation, so it goes against your intuition.
Besides, I've actually figured out where it came from, so even if that exact number is wrong (which it probably is,) it still has a basis in fact.
Re:Hate Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on slashdot is pedantry a good excuse to invalidate the argument being made.
Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Only on slashdot is pedantry a good excuse to invalidate the argument being made.
Well played.
At the risk of being ironic... That behaviour is actually commonplace on forums, especially within the Anglosphere. I've lost count of the number of times some people cant get over a typo or misplaced word, let alone be able to read a sentence and understand the meaning in context which may be different to the strict dictionary definitions (this is extremely common when quoting translated texts where words don't strictly share the same meanings in English).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years
What Zuckerberg will likely be "curbing" and what Facebook tends to ban:
- claims that racism is not the primary cause of poverty and criminality in minority communities
- pointing out that gender is not a social construct
- using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person
- rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
- speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
- speech c
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that is totally incorrect. My results show that I am 99.8% European with 0.1% unknown and 0.1% broadly African.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Epithets aside, you seem to take a more absolute approach to limitations on rights and 'argue' your position by exaggeration - equating any limitation on speech with 'burning' someone. You don't address the other examples of limitations to speech that I provided - I'm not sure if that's because you consider that they, too, are equivalent to burning someone or whether your eagerness to share your opinion on one part of what I said overwhelmed your reason and compelled you to act immediately.
Not sure if impas
Re:Hate Speech (Score:5, Informative)
This might be termed politically desanctioned speech (politically incorrect speech being the sloppy cousin) where you are not protected by free speech laws, but originally, hate speech was a exacerbating condition that made "hate crimes" worse. It was not a thing unto itself. Of course, it has morphed into a thing by itself because no one remembers the original purpose. For example, vandalism is a crime, but not necessarily a hate crime. What makes it a hate crime, worse than a regular instance of vandalism is "hate speech" or the motive behind the crime. The Supreme Court has ruled this is not protected by the first amendment because you lose your first amendment protections by committing the underlying crime. This was a dubious ruling, but hasn't been revisited. Of course, it's hard to commit vandalism online unless you are a hacker, but easy to invoke "hate speech", so everyone wants that policed despite there being no underlying crime. Of course, you aren't protected by the first amendment because the courts have not ruled that FB or Google hangouts or whatever are "places of public accommodation". The ACLU used to fight for expansion of the definition of public accommodation, and FB would probably fit the bill, but they have taken it upon themselves to police "hate speech" instead. Of course, politicians would love all this to be policed so they can pressure FB and Google to stamp out political speech they don't like either, and advertisers would love it stamped out so they can't be tagged with boycotts and the like, but if malls have to put up with free speech, then FB probably should too.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning "hate speech" is censorship. PERIOD.
If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space" and the 1st amendment should take precedent.
But, no, let's target some bullshit inanimate object, "hate speech", in a knee-jerk reaction to the symptom instead of treating the cause.
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space"
Why 'should' it? The courts have ruled, repeatedly, that private property is private even when open to the public. Protestors have been asked to leave public malls because the mall is privately owned. You want the constitution to apply to the right to speech, but want the rights of private property to be weakened. Interesting position.
Banning "hate speech" is censorship.
Yes. It is. Where do you stand on libel, slander, false advertising, false listing of ingredients in food, perjury, etc.?
an Example. (Score:2)
God Damn I hate f#!@%! hate speech!
Did I get it right?
Re: (Score:2)
there are worse things (at least according to facebook): Nudity
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't be throwing the word retard around when you clearly don't know how to read. What he said:
That's not the same as 'if you said something that makes me want to
Problematic (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democrats and the SJW's have already decided what they consider hate speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You understand how marxism works, right?
Society follows some order A ... ad nauseum, o
Revolutionary group 1 fights to change it to order B, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 2 fights to change it to order C, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 3 fights to change it to order D, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 4 fights to change it to order E, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 5 fights to change it to order F, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 6 fights to change it to order G, perhaps violently
Re: (Score:2)
You understand how marxism works, right?
Society follows some order A ... ad nauseum, or at least until there is literally only one dumbass left, at which point he/she/it/zit/whatever dies and poof goes the species
Revolutionary group 1 fights to change it to order B, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 2 fights to change it to order C, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 3 fights to change it to order D, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 4 fights to change it to order E, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 5 fights to change it to order F, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 6 fights to change it to order G, perhaps violently
IANA Marxist, but let me offer my view, from what I know. You left out what Marx actually proposed, which was that there would be one final revolution that would ensure there would be no more.
Marx observed that revolutions in history followed a cycle of the oppressed rising up to conquer their oppressors, and the victors then morphing into the new oppressors. He proposed a system that he thought would prevent the victors from turning into oppressors, by placing the protection of workers at the heart of the
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism does the same, it just demands to make a profit in every single step.
Facebook probably will kerb hate speech in five to ten years time, as growing unpopularity forces it to shut down servers. Do you know "I hate you", is in fact not hate speech, now how fucked up is that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And when I see them on the news marching on cities, running down innocent women with cars, talking openly about ethnic cleansing on camps, I'll address them just as forthrightly.
Anyone who worships the greatest enemy the u.s. ever faced isn't really american. Nazi's are flat out evil.
Don't get nazi tattoos, carry nazi flags, and throw nazi salutes.
Re: (Score:2)
And when I see them on the news marching on cities, running down innocent women with cars, talking openly about ethnic cleansing on camps, I'll address them just as forthrightly.
You should have started a couple of years ago then. About the time that BLM started radicalizing and members started attacking police. And several years before that with them torching, smashing businesses at protests, and don't forget the most recent cast in Hamburg which looked more like a revolutionary war was going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you'll see them on the news. Not in your neighborhood. On the news. And you'll disagree with anything they say, because these are the straw-men you were trained to hate.
Re: (Score:2)
put Mao ornaments on the White House Christ^h^h^h^h^h^hWinter Tree
If that was true you might actually have a point. When you have to make stuff up, it rather undermines you entire argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair many of the alt right carry nazi flags, have SS tattoos, and so on.
No. A *few* of the alt-right carry nazi flags, have SS tattoos, and so on. General society shuns these people anyway so they aren't a threat.
OTOH, very many people want to silence speech that they do not agree with. This group is not only a lot larger than the nazi group, they are also a larger threat to society.
Re: Don't worry (Score:2)
Please go and tell some neo-Nazis that they're a bunch of leftie socialists. That would make a hilarious video clip.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
> Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.
So Republicans are the only ones left that truly believe in liberal Western values. I guess I will be voting Republican from now on then.
The whole point of giving peasants like you this little bit of freedom is that you can say what needs to be said to the powerful without risk of punishment because you've manged to offend them. Bring back harsh punishments for political heresy and speech from the masses becomes politically useless.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)
"Western values" have always included limits on speech, even in the US. For example:
- State secrets
- Certain personal details like medical information
- Credible threats
- Speech that directly causes injury/death ("fire!")
- Contempt of court
- Lying under oath
- Grooming children for sexual exploitation
- Encouraging suicide
- Planning crimes
Beyond that there is a lot of speech that while not illegal can still have severe consequences for saying, and free speech protections don't extend to private venues.
There are many grey areas. What constitutes illegal harassment, or a credible threat, for example. But it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion of free speech and hate speech unless you first acknowledge that you never had, and never will have the absolute right to say anything you like at any time.
In fact, if you want to defend free speech, like I do, you need to understand this because an extreme "everything must be 4chan" position is not an effective argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.
As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?
The asinine, unthinking, childish SJWs who have literally formally institutionalized methods of censorship shutting down speech they can't logically refute? [rationalwiki.org]
Yes, "progressives" are the real close-minded Fascists/Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?
Medical science too.
If words had no effect on people then they wouldn't be able to cause stress, depression and other mental illnesses. These illnesses have physical manifestations. Words literally have a physical affect on a human's body.
Those people who decide to shoot up schools or YouTube or drive a truck into some people were not physically beaten until they agreed to do it, for example.
So just as society has an interest in preventing physical harm through beatings, and an interest in preventing illness through poisoning, it has an interest in preventing damage through speech.
You might argue that it's unfair because some people are over-sensitive and harmed by the slightest thing. The law has your back here, it recognizes the concept of a "reasonable person". Just like it accepts that while some people might be injured by peanuts, as long as you don't deliberately feed them peanuts just to hurt them it's their problem.
I guess that makes science an SJW Nazi.
More Problematic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?
Rule #1:
If an opinion or alleged statement of fact, written, spoken, or otherwise transmitted, questions the utility, morality, practicality, or motives of using AI to monitor, judge, and punish "Hate Speech", it shall be deemed to be de facto "Hate Speech".
Rule #2:
Any dispute or ambiguity shall be resolved using Rule #1.
Who decides: The hackers (Score:3)
I greatly look forward to the World Neural Hate Net being trained to label all non-Nazi speech as hate speech. Any image posted without a swastika? Banned globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?
Humans are single subjective. AI is trained on multiple humans. The point here is that an AI won't create a definition that will agree with everyone, it's that it will create a definition by majority i.e. a socially acceptable one if it is trained well enough.
AI isn't subjective, it analyses based on rules it defines based on the input it is given. That's the problem with the current model, two people will nearly always disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
> It only gets murky when humans lie about their intentions
Which is pretty much always.
Someone tried to sue Facebook over censorship. They claimed abuses under the Lanham act. They claimed fraud and false advertising.
The judge basically went "Meh. Everyone lies. Their basic claims about their product are just nonsense. We don't care.".
Monopoly (Score:3)
Leaving aside for a moment the crap headline that implies the opposite of what Zuckerberg actually said, the key point here is the claim that something changed at Facebook to enable it to police itself effectively. A bit late for that now. Do business like a monopoly, get regulated like a monopoly. [nbcnews.com]
Do they really need an AI? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're already doing a pretty good job of censoring conservative beliefs. Most of my conservative friends on Facebook have had their account disabled for time-out periods or even outright banned. They're doing a good job already.
They do have some automation. I saw a friend post a Pepe picture, and he was banned immediately for that hateful act.
Re:Do they really need an AI? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is amazing what passes as a "conservative" these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives, by definition, resist change and support the maintenance of the status quo.
They are the least likely to recognise the changes to society that increasingly ubiquitous communication brings and to modify their behaviour accordingly. Painting with a very broad brush, even if they do recognise the external changes, they are more likely to resist or resent any requirement to change their own behaviour.
I would expect more conservatives to be moderated (banned, cautioned, censored etc.) _by_definitio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To the extent that someone supports the status quo and resists change to it, their behaviour is conservative.
How you label them and whatever you mean by 'liberal status quo' sounds more like a problem with labels and definitions than a paradox or contradiction.
Re: (Score:2)
1.
Conservatives, by definition, resist change and support the maintenance of the status quo.
Americans (US) have created stupid labels like Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, even Republicans unrelated to the idea of a republic and Democrats unrelated to the idea of democracy. When they use these words, it means nothing logical. The definition you have supplied is logical, hence not applicable in American discourse.
2.
I would expect more conservatives to be moderated (banned, cautioned, censored etc.) _by_definition_.
How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't
Re: (Score:2)
And why the fuck not?
No room to ramp emotional tone. Peaked too early. Dull. -1 to Fun.
Technology is our servitor, not the other way around
Poor attempt at diversion. -1 to Troll.
You trans-Humanist piece of worthless filth.
Too great an exaggeration of conservative behaviour, fail Poe's Law. -2 to Troll.
Dull. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Shill -2
As a more senior member of the liberal consipracy, I can assure you he'll recieve double the usual pay rate for his exceptionally rapid triggering of you.
Re:Do they really need an AI? (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook, like Slashdot and Twitter, doesn't apply the same standard to everyone.
If you register a new account on Slashdot, your karma starts out low. You can post less often and don't get any karma bonus until you have built up your account a bit. Similarly on Twitter, brand new accounts that get immediately reported are often deleted without further warning, because they have a big problem with bots and people register new accounts to get around bans.
Facebook is similar. Once your account is established it gets more leeway. But once it has a number of "strikes" against it, posting something like a Pepe meme can get it banned rather than just warned. Pepe memes are mostly racist, particularly anti-Semitic, and associated with Nazism. The idea was to trick people by exchanging the easily recognizable swastikas for a cartoon frog, so Facebook tends to go easy on first time offenders, but after a pattern emerges they become less tolerant.
Note that I'm not defending Facebook, merely explaining this behaviour which seems to confuse a lot of people (like the infamous "I hate black people" tweet).
April 1st was last week! (Score:2)
This has got to be the funniest thing Zuckerberg has ever said.
Hopefully Facebook won't even exist by that time anyway.
That's funny (Score:2)
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a free speech issue (Score:2)
That said, if you want free Megaphones how about making the Internet a free public utility?
Re: (Score:2)
censorship! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok, Facebook saves everything you delete too!
It's especially valuable data because it is your true feelings, that you might be too afraid to post.
Re: (Score:2)
> apparently censorship is when you clean graffiti from your own property
Except it's not graffiti. It's the user generated content you told everyone they could create.
You're just making a weak excuse for fascist nonsense. You don't care about our founding principles and will find any weak excuse to violate them.
But muh self driving cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh look, a real world example of powerful entities planning to use AI systems for evil!
But go ahead, mock the AI skeptics with Skynet and Matrix strawmen.
We always seem to find ourselves in these little quandaries in our reckless pursuit of scientific development and apparently no one seems to think it's a problem. We can pass righteous judgement on the Soviets for their utterly insane development of nuclear technologies but then pat ourselves on the back for the latest social media spy tech disguised as a consumer product.
If only AI would curb Facebook in 5 to 10 years... (Score:5, Funny)
translation (Score:5, Insightful)
What Zuckerberg will likely be "curbing" and what Facebook tends to ban:
- claims that racism is not the primary cause of poverty and criminality in minority communities
- pointing out that gender is not a social construct
- using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person
- rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
- speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
- speech critical or disapproving of Islam
- anything containing derogatory words for progressive protected classes (but not derogatory words for straight white males)
Of course, the net effect will be that Facebook turns even more into a progressive bubble. And while that may be comforting to progressives, it makes it hard for them to understand why their favorite political candidates or policies don't catch on among Americans in general.
I don't think Facebook can be a bubble (Score:2)
Nor is there any evidence that Facebook or anyone else is cracking down on any of the things you've sighted. Most of the beliefs you're post outlined and/or represent belong to the right wing, and last I check the right wing party is in control of all branches of the government. It's kind of silly to play the victim card when your side lit
Re: (Score:2)
I have an account; that doesn't mean I do anything more than check my messages on Facebook every few weeks. I'm pretty typical there among the people I know.
I didn't post any "beliefs". I identified categories of statements that likely get you censored on Faceb
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very limited translation you made. Slashdot may have a clear US-centric audience, but Facebook has more than 1 billion users all over the world. If all US Conservatives feeling slighted by the items on your list were on FB (I mean ALL of them), they'd still be a small part of this total.
Your ideas of what is a "progressive bubble" is and of what are the main issues that drive a wedge between "progressive" and "conservative" are really too US-Centric to be the real guidelines for FB.
Just take a look
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you can spew out as much hatred as you want against plenty of people. Cake makers and gun owners come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
You are apparently not very familiar with the vile and oppressive history of progressives and leftists on homosexuality.
Are you kidding? Progressives love through people in prison.
Indeed, progressives stomp on freedom of association with their jackboots. As a gay man, I can't even refuse to serve people who preach that I should be killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Progressives love through people in prison.
I mean sure, if you invent a new meaning for progressives then you can say that. Progressives are delicious too as it happens. Also progresives can fly higher than most other birds.
As a gay man, I can't even refuse to serve people who preach that I should be killed.
Advocacy of murder is not as far as I can tell a protected class.
Only certain types of "hate speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll just follow the usual SJW rule which is "group X is incapable of $type_of_bigotry because they don't have 'power.'" See, if a black man grabs a white man and beats him to death screaming direct racial epithets along the way, that's not racist to them because the black man is a minority thus has no power, thus cannot be racist. Meanwhile, if a white guy from a trailer park, on SS disability screams "die n----" and shoots a super-rich black man that is totally racist because as a white man the trailer park denizen has white privilege.
This is why if actual Communists ever, God forbid, take power, I will have absolutely no sympathy for many of our kulaks (historically, "liberals" and "progressives" were about as hated by actual Communists as monarchists).
You just don't want to see it (Score:4, Informative)
Take the case of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. Or that autistic guy who was tortured live on Facebook this time last year. People like you, yes, like you, are ideologically invested in the idea that it doesn't happen to white people.
Afrikaners get murdered on a regular basis in South Africa by blacks still angry about apartheid. Doesn't get reported either.
A lot of the "anti-black hate crimes" that show up in the media turn out to be hoaxes, just like a lot of the time it turns out that when the facts are in most police shootings are reasonably justified.
There is no poor, pathetic oppressed class and a big oppressor class on issues like this. There are just assholes and their victims. Turns out a lot of black people are assholes just like a lot of white people are.
Ok, let's google some of that (Score:2, Troll)
The second one [cnn.com] wasn't a hate crime because it was blacks and a white. It was because it was a bunch of assholes attacking an Autistic man. Again, not Blacks attacking "Whitey". Still a hate crime, but their skin color was irrelevant.
I don't know enough about South Africa to say if you're right or wrong there. The entire
Re:So when was the last time that happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
i know you wont, because it doesnt fit your worldview, but have a look at this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/white-black-crime-vs-black-white-crime-new-statistics-show-more-killings-between-2424598
Now, imagine what those stats look like if adjusted for total population..
Of course you are going to play silly qualitative games claiming 'but none of those black on white killings are because of race'
Believe what you will, however it is pretty common street knowledge that black gangs target whites because they are less likely
to resist violently, tend to carry more money, and deserve it more - and that is pretty much racism.
But no, your unverified single anecdote trumps decades of facts, doesnt it.
BTW, Yes, I know quite a few 'real' (maxist) communists, and even a real trotskiest.
The more serious 'believers' are very very much in touch with the fact that communism has a fatal flaw in implementation because it
centralises power excessively, and they know what that directly leads to.
As you obvious see Stalin and Mao as exceptions, perhaps you would like to point to the happy successful well balanced communist state?
The problem isnt left or right, it is totalitarianism, and anyone screaming for power for THEIR ONE TRUE BELIEF is pretty solidly in that camp from
my point of view.
I've very confused (Score:2, Troll)
White people killing blacks is increasing at a higher rate than the other way around. But that said _both_ are increasing. The point the article is hinting at is that the toxic atmosphere created by the right wing (especially Trump and the alt right) are increasing racially motivated violence. The
Re: (Score:3)
I find the same thing with talking to religious people vs actual priests/clergy. A Clergyman has spend years studying their religion and has come to grips with the parts that don't make sense and they'll openly talk abou
Congress ?? (Score:2)
Why is it congress business whether or not facebook is regulating hate speech? Facebook shouldnt be told what it needs to do in that regard. Government has no right to tell facebook whether it should or shouldnâ(TM)t prevent hate speech. Eventually givernment will force facebook to only put pro-government stuff everything else will be declared fake!
Re: (Score:2)
The fallacy is that you fail to consider OTHER government's (and Columbia Analytica) contamination of the social media platform(s ... all).
Re: (Score:2)
> The fallacy is that you fail to consider OTHER government's (and Columbia Analytica) contamination of the social media platform(s ... all).
It's a global network. Everyone is allowed to play.
If you really think that some underfunded Russians can really do better than the Koch Brothers or Bloomberg, or the entire liberal media and Hollywood then you really have a low opinion of America.
It's much like our surface navies facing off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a global network. Everyone is allowed to play.
WAS allowed to. That's the fucking point of the investigation.
If you really think ...
Doesn't matter what I think. The facts speak for themselves.
It's much like our surface navies facing off.
It's not like that at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get off the sauce, OK?
What in Sam Hill are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A neutral public forum.
What was selective enforcement.
Kick the can ... (Score:2)
... down the road.
I Can Do It Faster (Score:2)
Does that count ? (Score:2)
I hate to hear Zuckerberg speak, does that count ?
Uninstalled FB from my phone, cleared my browser.. (Score:2)
I'm done with being a regular user of the FB echo chamber. That Musk Vimeo was great and finally convinced me to end my daily, no constant, connection to FB. I left a pub note for people to just call or SMS text me from now on (didn't post my actual number, derr) and that I'd log on occasionally to check new FR. I will say the one thing I've always liked about FB is how way-back contacts can re-connect. I guess that may only be an issue for those older than millennials.
The entire thing is now an https://en.
Sure it will (Score:2)
I give even odds that Facebook will begin collapsing by the end of 2018 and be on par with CNN for political/cultural relevancy by 2020. (Nearly none)
My prediction (Score:2)
Oh Zuckyboy there is right on the money, though he's short-changing himself by a few years. I don't think Facebook is even going to be a thing for a heck of a lot longer. This is a mortal wound. I don't see a scenario that has Facebook looking pretty in a few years time. So yeah, hate speech gunna be gone from Facebook, cuz Facebook will be gone.
Good riddance. Twitter next please.
Supreme court says no such thing as Hate speech (Score:3, Informative)
new improved packaging (Score:2)
Facebook will cure 2018 hate speech in 2023 or 2028. If the planet still exists in 2028.
Somehow, I don't think Zuck factored into his estimate that arms races are two-way streets.
And another factor: in Arab cultures, young men sexualize extremely minor details of women's behaviours and dress. As the loudness declines, the gain increases.
Nevertheless, Facebook will declare this an objective victory. Meanwhile, hate will persist on a cholesterol-reduced diet with fewer words identified by a single letter, an
Facebook AI Will Curb Free Speech In 5 To 10 Years (Score:2)
there, fixed.
Great! (Score:2)
Just to think, we get hate speech eliminating AI and cold fusion in the same year!
Will curb hate in 10-15, war in 15-20 (Score:2)
Right?
Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb (Score:2)
Reality : Facebook will have been replaced by another Free Speech App within 5 to 10 Years.
No, bad (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, their kind needs to be educated as to why they are so wrong.
See, that's where you assume too much.
To far too many people it doesn't matter if those who disagree are right or wrong, or even if they & their own side is right or wrong.
They are simply an enemy, to be destroyed. That tribal instinct at work. When it's active it shuts out other rational cognitive processes.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Sarcasm requires brainpower at the receiving end, and who'd want that?