In a World First, Facebook To Give Data on Hate Speech Suspects To French Courts (reuters.com) 116
Facebook said it has agreed to give the names of French users who are suspected of using hate speech on its platform to the local courts when requested. The deal is believed to be the first of its kind in the world. From a report: The decision by the world's biggest social media network comes after successive meetings between Zuckerberg and Macron, who wants to take a leading role globally on the regulation of hate speech and the spread of false information online. So far, Facebook has cooperated with French justice on matters related to terrorist attacks and violent acts by transferring the IP addresses and other identification data of suspected individuals to French judges who formally demanded it. Following a meeting between Nick Clegg, Facebook's head of global affairs, and Cedric O (France's minister for digital affairs) last week, the social media company has extended this cooperation to hate speech. "This is huge news, it means that the judicial process will be able to run normally," O told Reuters in an interview. "It's really very important, they're only doing it for France."
Re: (Score:2)
Quit associating concern over censorship with idiotic anti-jewspeak. One thinks you are in favor of censorship by trying to link in the reader's mind that defense of censorship means one buys into it.
What about suspected blasphemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, as long as the dollars keep rolling in. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about data of users who are suspected of blasphemy?
Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
Re: (Score:3)
Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
Blasphemy! He's said it again!
Re: (Score:2)
Blasphemy and hate speech is the same.
I am sure a number of Sharia courts would happily issue such requests.
Sure they would, but they had no legal base.
Re: (Score:2)
Blasphemy and hate speech is the same.
They are to religious people.
I am sure a number of Sharia courts would happily issue such requests.
Sure they would, but they had no legal base.
Yes they would, at least according to Sharia Law.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharia law is the law of the land in the EU, their Supreme Court agreed fairly recently with the notion that offending Islam is hate speech and therefore can be suppressed. And there are plenty of portions of Paris where police are no longer in control and Sharia courts effectively rule the population.
Re: (Score:1)
as a french dude, that might be the stupiest thing i read this year
france is one of the most agressive country concerning secularity (we actually invented the term) and french law will always be put first before any religious beliefs;
showing signs of religion is actually forbiden to teachers and any states representants (like cops)
as for your example : peoples who actually try to hold a sharia court (or even force their kids into a religious school not authorised or under surveillance from the state ) would
Re: (Score:2)
And there are plenty of portions of Paris where police are no longer in control and Sharia courts effectively rule the population.
That is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
What about data of users who are suspected of blasphemy? I am sure a number of Sharia courts would happily issue such requests.
Facebook can either do business there and follow the rules, or it can not do business there, or it can do business there, flaunt the rules, and have some of its employees stoned (not the good stoned) and/or beheaded. If it chooses not to do business there, then someone else will take their place, and surely they will be just as willing to share that data when required by law.
Meanwhile, social media can be used to send covert messages using codes, so it's still useful to any resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can either do business there and follow the rules, or it can not do business there
That is NOT what this is about. Of course Facebook is required to follow court orders and obey search warrants. This is about FB voluntarily giving authorities additional private information about their users.
A basic principle of human rights is that if the police want information of a citizen, they can go to court and make their case to a judge and get a warrant.
Facebook is helping to flush that right down the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about FB voluntarily giving authorities additional private information about their users.
When a judge makes a formal demand I'm not sure where the word 'voluntarily' gets involved.
But yes, Facebook are indeed volunteering not to be held in contempt of court, locked up or transported to Angola to work in a mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about data of users who are suspected of blasphemy?
Going against the narrative is considered blasphemy by those that blindly believe the narrative.
Soon to happen in the rest of the EU (Score:2)
The law has a long reach, and it even applies to the UK and Scotland.
Yes, we are coming for you.
No, you can't hide.
Re:Soon to happen in the rest of the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
People who took advantage of censorship powers already once "came for the UK and Scottland", and got as far as the English channel. It cost the world dearly.
They cheer your desire to censor. So do any dictator wannabees playing the long game. The problem is the power to censor, not who is in power doing the censoring. Thinking the votes of The People will keep it in line is whistling past the graveyard. Hint: Past democracies failed when The People voted emergency powers over their rights to their leaders, who never gave it up.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't believe there is any such thing, there is just speech.
I know this article is more about France, but I'm talking US here in my case.
I mean, of course, actual incitement to violence is illegal.
But expressing opinions, whether popular or not, should not in any form be illegal or so called banned 'hate speech'.
I suppose hate speech might qualify if it is always prefaces with "I hate.....".
But even that is an opinion and should not be censored or aga
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, of course, actual incitement to violence is illegal.
Wow you just recitated the definition of hate speech. Was not that hard, or was it?
Re: (Score:1)
Wow you just recitated the definition of hate speech.
Your definition, not those saying they are censoring hate speech. They have a different definition.
Re: (Score:2)
I can give you the legal definition. It's speech that incites or causes others to hate people based on their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. The bar is pretty high, people saying homosexuals will go to hell or that apostles should be punished with death seem to get away with it.
That's part of the problem with it. Can't write down an exact definition, it's ultimately up to a jury.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "apostates".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the problem with it. Can't write down an exact definition, it's ultimately up to a jury.
well at least you admit that much. The juries in such kangaroo courts are there to keep the witch hunts going...gotta keep reminding people that their neighbors are their enemies in order to justify perpetual tyranny. This is all under the guise of 'social justice' of course.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't "admit" anything, my opinion was always that it was a poor system and a generally flawed idea.
You seem to have assumed I would support it. Your arguments would be better if you didn't make such assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's strange. The exact legal definition is indeed written down and someone's kindly posted it on the internet so that you can read it too.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk... [legislation.gov.uk]
To be fair, that one covers racial hatred. Do your own research to find other forms of hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure we'll see each other in the gulag before we die for being 'enemies of the people.' I'll be sure to piss in your bowl of slop..
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and, historically, the wannabe tyrants like yourself were among the first to be purged.
Re: (Score:2)
It will happen in the US too if the current crop of Democratic hopefuls get their way. They're already talking about regulating Facebook which is likewise inviting it. Google brass recently talked about subverting the elections for the same reason.
Hail the new Censor (Score:1)
Praise the Zuckerborg who determines what is hate and what is false information!
Zuckerberg and Macron. What they really want is: (Score:4, Interesting)
to take a leading role globally on the regulation of all speech and the spread of information online that disputes government propaganda.
"Hate" and "false" are mere marketing terms
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah, forgot about them. Yes, they would be the target of this.
Oh well, Myspace is still up, right? I'm sure they'll protect the users' privacy...
"False information?" (Score:4, Insightful)
So when they say they're fighting "false information", does that mean they're hoping to stop the spread of information that is factually incorrect, or will this target information sources that would go against something like Google's "ML Fairness" standard, where the information is factually correct, but unpleasant or inconvenient to admit, or saying the opposite is preferred?
It means whatever pisses off the establishment (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to be honest here: I'm hard-line against censorship, but I honestly don't know what the solution to the pervasive fake news/filter bubble effect is.
At some point, you have to realize that the reported news is within a margin of error of the actual truth, and learn how to work with that. Basically, politicians gonna lie, but you have to vote for one of em. Figure out which one will do closest to what you want.
Called it (Score:3)
Called it almost a decade ago. It's only a matter of time before these platforms turn on the users. Such a wealth of info on so many misbehaving users.
Re: (Score:3)
Called it almost a decade ago. It's only a matter of time before these platforms turn on the users. Such a wealth of info on so many misbehaving users.
Users are their bread and butter, but government have the ability to take their bread and butter away. Every corporation has to decide where on the scale they stand, from totally on the side of their users (those that give to them), to on the side of governments (those that take from them) in hopes of maximizing their revenue (highest net income when the givers and takers are balanced).
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the power to ensconce themselves in echo chambers where their broadcasts are never challenged so long as it is proper newspeak?
It's funny, because when conservatives have done this (from blasphemy laws to conservapedia), they were criticized for trying to impose their censorship on the net. Now that the left has let go of its 90s era live-and-let-live culture, it's trying its own hand, and now we've got legions of idiots praising it. 'Hate speech' is just the newspeak term for blasphemy.
Ridiculous
Re: (Score:2)
Gone?
Nah, it's just like always. Different spam and trolls, same old Slashdot. Okay, some different trolls...
The day Slashdot turns into a haven for censorship is the day I stop reading. So long, and thanks for all the fish, etc..
Luckily, that hasn't happened yet.
Several kinds of hate speech (Score:3)
I suppose the kind of hatespeech which powerful people will get up in arms about is hatespeech against powerful people/groups/countries by people who have got a good reason for it.
not hatespeech against those at the bottom of society. That'll be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Feeling outraged about abuse of power? Better shut up, it is illegal to voice that in anything but the most softspoken manner.
This is massively dangerous (Score:1, Troll)
Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
This is so loose that if I was to criticize a religion, for something that is factually wrong, such as Adam / Eve, that would be hate speech towards that religious group. Other insane examples that would qualify:
1. "I don't believe in white supremacy.", would actually insult white supremacists and since Caucasian's are an ethnic group that makes it hate speech.
2. "I think it's wrong to invent / make
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously your layman explanation:
Hate speech is anything that anyone could take offense to, for any reason.
And the "official definition":
The official definition is:
Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Contradict each other. The official definition is pretty clear. It has nothing to do if you yourself feel offended.
Re: (Score:1)
attacks, threatens, or insults
Attacks... sure... threatens... sure... insults?
Its not those things AND insults, its those things OR insults.
I feel insulted every time you comment. Think about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech has nothing to do with anyone feeling offended.
Either you speak/publish stuff which is not allowed by the law or not.
Plain and simple.
All your examples are nonsense. You are mixing it up with defamation and libel. In such cases you can sue if you feel offended.
If something is hate speech is brought up by the sate attorney, not by you, and if it is indeed hate speech is decided by a court, judge, not by you or the attorney or the police.
No idea what you want to prove with your long threat, you ar
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what you want to prove with your long threat, you are an idiot?
If I invent a religion, which I can do at any moment, for any reason and with any rules I want that religion to have, and that question insults my new religious belief, then it's indeed hate speech, as it would fit the definition, which is:
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Given that definition, which is from Websters, if you insult me or cause me offense, based the things that I can invent, gender or religion, then it's hate speech. Otherwise, if you think that's wrong then you need to clearly layout what genders and what religions are i
Re: (Score:2)
and that question insults my new religious belief, then it's indeed hate speech,
No it is not. Stop repeating yourself. You made perfectly clear, that yo don't grasp the concept of hate speech.
Otherwise, if you think that's wrong then you need to clearly layout what genders and what religions are included, and even go as far as to outline exact what beliefs in those religions / genders can count towards it. ... that would be ridiculous.
No I have not
Re: (Score:2)
a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification and is based on the individual's personal awareness or identity.
This means I can just invent what I feel like and it's becomes a gender. If I say I feel like a soda can, which is intentionally ridiculous, then you can't say anything to which I could take insult, or feel threatened over, based on my new gender, regardless of how ridiculous my new gender is. If you scope what genders that hate speech can apply to, then the problem goes away, because you could (but shouldn't), s
Re: (Score:2)
Religion:
1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4) the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5) the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6) something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Religion: something you make up, and just believe, that doesn't have any supporting evidence or facts to defend it. I could believe a fork created the universe, and that's a religion. If you then dismiss my bat shit crazy fork idea, t
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you know your points 1. till 6. are completely bollocks?
The point is that almost anything can be hate speech, because the definition isn't tight enough to limit the scope to meaningful isolated points.
Actually it is, as you already GAVE THE DEFINITION, no idea what is wrong with you.
Re: (Score:2)
1. "I don't believe in white supremacy.", would actually insult white supremacists and since Caucasian's are an ethnic group that makes it hate speech.
2. "I think it's wrong to invent / make up sexual assault allegations.", could insult men or women, making it hate speech.
3. "I think it's wrong to beat / rape women.", insults almost every religion on earth, making it hate speech.
4. "I think raping children is wrong.", insults many religions, including Christianity, making it hate speech.
5. "I don't like pasta.", hilariously, insults Pastafarian's, making it hate speech.
6. "I don't regard Trump as a God.", insults people who think it's a religious leader, if they just invent a religion, making it hate speech.
1) IF you were a white supremacist (which makes you an idiot) and I tell you that I disagree with your points, and that insults, or offends you, because you're Caucasian, it's hate speech. Being Caucasian gives you an ethnic group and if I offend anything you believe or think, that you think because of ethnicity, that's hate speech, regardless if you can defend it or not. Having to defend the points that insult or offend you, is not part of the
Re: (Score:2)
1) IF you were a white supremacist (which makes you an idiot) and I tell you that I disagree with your points, and that insults, or offends you, because you're Caucasian, it's hate speech.
No, it is not. Why would it?
2. Being male, female, or other, would align with a gender identification, so if I say ANYTHING which would could offended or insult you because of that, it's hate speech.
No, it is not. Why would it?
3. Christianity clearly says you can not only beat your wife / female slave, you should keep fema
Re: (Score:2)
Hate Speech:
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Free expression of opinion isn't excluded in hate speech, and I would totally agree that it should be, but it's not.
Have you heard of Islamophobia? If I exercise my freedom of expression and tell a woman wearing a Hijab to take it off for the sake of getting a picture taken at a government office, that would qualify as both free expression and hate speech, because she will, almost certainly, feel insulted or
Re: (Score:2)
All your examples are free expression of opinion and not hate speech.
And all cases of hate speech are handled in a court of law. There is no inquisition.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people will think this ridiculously hyperbolic.
I wish they were right, but they're not.
Macron wants a global leading role (Score:2)
Zuckerberg and Macron, who wants to take a leading role globally on the regulation of hate speech and the spread of false information online.
It seems Macron would like to take any global leading role to escape its low popularity at home.
We need peer-to-peer networks as public forum (Score:2)
... something outside the control of any individual, organization or state.
So we need to develop and popularize alternatives to facebook, youtube, google, ... that can't be easily controlled, regulated or blocked.
I mean something like the Freenet Project:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]