Major Tech Firms Sign EU Pledge To Tackle Hate Speech (theverge.com) 35
Many of the world's largest tech companies, including Meta, Google, TikTok, and X, have pledged to European lawmakers that they will do more to prevent and remove illegal hate speech on their platforms. The revised set of voluntary commitments unveiled on Monday aim to help platforms "demonstrate their compliance" with the Digital Services Act (DSA) obligations regarding illegal content moderation. The Verge reports: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Dailymotion, Jeuxvideo.com, Rakuten Viber, and Microsoft-hosted consumer services have all signed the "Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online Plus" -- which is not a terribly named streaming service but an update to a 2016 Code. The revised code commits signatories to transparency around hate speech detection and reduction, to allowing third-party monitors to assess how hate speech notices are reviewed by the platforms, and to review "at least two-thirds of hate speech notices" within 24 hours. These EU Codes of Conduct are voluntary commitments and companies face no penalties if they decide to back out of the agreement [...].
Conditions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much the better if it's not; they're kind of stupid to be honest. One that sticks out in recent memory is this:
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
They even found a mention from the state government that they were requiring prior permission for flights, and published it right there in that piece, and yet they rated the whole thing as false. At best maybe they could claim that it wasn't FEMA or the FAA (though they should have done a better job of looking into it given they're supposedly "fact" checkers, whe
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring permission to fly into a disaster zone is not the equivalent of FEMA saying "no you can't have a Starlink".
Re:Conditions (Score:4, Informative)
>"As long as there's no fact-checking involved."
In the USA there is no such thing as illegal "hate speech." There is only illegal incitement to violence, which is much different (or liable/slander, which is civil).
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://reason.com/volokh/2017... [reason.com]
Now, what a private company does is its own business. If they want to try and define something as nebulous as so-called "hate speech" and try to control it, they can. But not because it is "illegal" and not because the government has any involvement in it. And even still, it goes against the spirit of free speech in the USA.
Meanwhile, if you don't want to read something, then don't. If you don't want to hear from someone, then mute/filter them yourself on your own account. If you want to correct something, then post a reply or use some tool like community notes. If you hate the platform, then just leave. That is your freedom to not listen.
What Are the Odds . . . (Score:2)
AI Moderation Stifles Free Speech (Score:3, Informative)
AI moderation is what will be applied.
AI moderation boils down to moderating based on keywords and phrases, and occasionally tone, as in the pitch of ones voice.
AI moderation has zero idea the context of what is being talked about and will end up banning people on keywords and phrases.
AI moderation rarely, if ever is reviewed by the eyes of a human. In most cases, some company will get enough complaints, bad press, or a lawsuit, and will tilt the dials a bit.
AI moderation will stifle free speech.
--
Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection. - Neal Boortz
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like a bunch of empty claims to me. Bring evidence or don't waste anyone's time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do... do you actually think that current moderation isn't largely AI based? Or is it that you think AI is way more competent than it actually is?
Re: (Score:2)
The Scunthorpe problem.
It'll be fun to watch them (Score:1)
It sounds like I'm trolling but both Facebook and Twitter had problems in America where if they used a algorithm to eliminate whites supremacy extremists they kept removing posts from Republican congressmen because they were so similar. That's why they didn't use algorithms. They could maintain whitelists for the members of our national Congress but there are just too many in the States to keep track of not to mention all t
If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:2, Informative)
Use the word “cisgender” on Twitter and your account will be flagged.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Elon Musk is secretly a transsexual reptilian wearing human skin he harvested soon after he emerged from the Hollow Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a rather long-winded way to say he's a nazi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Which isn't very surprising, given his upbringing.
Re: (Score:1)
We flag you when you use that word in meatspace, too. It's a reliable indicator of an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to bringing free speech back to twitter?
Great idea in theory (Score:5, Informative)
In practice, hate speech is impossible to define precisely in a way that all agree with.
I oppose truly hateful stuff, like racist rants, but it is easy to speculate that even an intellectual atheist post would be defined as hate by a religious reviewer
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of places seem to get the job done adequately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you remember BarBar, Son of Hud. He used to brag somewhat regularly here on slashdot how he got some lady to be forced to publicly apologize for "outing" him during some kind of hearing under Canada's hate speech laws and paying a fine or something like that, and even linked to proof of it. At first I thought nothing of it, then eventually happened across one of his youtube videos...his voice sounds like that of Bill Dauterive from King of the Hill, face looks like a live action version of i
Re: (Score:3)
>"Lots of places seem to get the job done adequately."
Yeah, based on nebulous opinion.
*ANY* speech can be "hate speech" depending on the mindset of who is hearing it. That is why it is stupid, snowflake concept. You don't have the right to not be offended in a free country. I hear things all the time I don't like, or find insulting or offensive. People need to grow up.
That said, people also need to remember to be kind, tolerant, and courteous. Not because there is some insane set of laws trying to m
Re: (Score:2)
People like you just want the right to rile up people to violence.
That's what hate speech laws stop.
It's not freedom of speech you want, it's freedom to lynch.
Fuck y'all.
Re: (Score:2)
>"People like you just want the right to rile up people to violence."
Wrong. I despise violence, as do most level-headed people.
There are laws in the USA against incitement to violence. And I do support those. But they are very limited in scope and circumstance.
>"It's not freedom of speech you want, it's freedom to lynch."
Right, because if one believes in free speech you automatically think that means they want violence. How thoughtful and insightful.
>"Fuck y'all."
And you are the one that suppor
Re: (Score:2)
People like you just want the right to rile up people to violence.
That's what hate speech laws stop.
European law goes well beyond incitement.
"Public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;
the above-mentioned offence when carried out by the public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material; "
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega... [europa.eu]
Simply expressing ones hatred of satanists and people who think the world is flat is hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning hate speech is not intended to prevent people from being "offended". It's intended to prevent people from saying things that are e.g. racist and sexist.
The banning of hate speech is intended to prevent people from saying things you don't like because you are too much of a coward to tolerate it.
Sure, it's difficult to discern intent sometimes, but that doesn't mean the rules shouldn't be there at all. As with any law, specific questions of legality get ironed out in the courts.
Why is intent even relevant? If by speaking someone merely intends to express their honest opinion about a religion, group, belief or ethnicity then that expression is still illegal. Pure speech completely disconnected from any action or intent to do anything other than convey thoughts and ideas is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather be lied to courteously (never mind the contradiction), or told the truth harshly?
As someone who was taught (and still believe) that honesty is the best policy, I know which one I would choose!
Holy books full of crap (Score:1)
The UK government is currently leaning to "yes".
Tech Firms Sign EU Pledge To Tackle Free Speech (Score:2)
If you thought free speech was dangerous, censorship is even worse.