Major Tech Firms Sign EU Pledge To Tackle Hate Speech (theverge.com) 162
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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:3, Informative)
Requiring permission to fly into a disaster zone is not the equivalent of FEMA saying "no you can't have a Starlink".
Re: (Score:3)
These flights were carrying starlink terminals, thus they were effectively denying delivery.
No. They were denying a method of delivery. Details matter, especially when you are the one complaining about a narrative being controlled.
Whoever these fact checkers are
You can't even follow your own sentence to its correct logical interpretation. This is fundamentally the issue. You see this as some kind of conspiracy whereas the reality is fact checkers are normal people usually under time duress. You don't have hours to pour through details on social media when a new "un-fact" gets posted ever 0.001 seconds. This is why there's a big
Re: (Score:2)
They were denying a method of delivery. Details matter, especially when you are the one complaining about a narrative being controlled.
Do you mean details like the roads being washed out, so air is the only practical way to deliver things? Or were you thinking that Elon should contract delivery to Pack Mules R Us?
Re: (Score:3)
No, Musk should contact the authorities in the area. A disaster area should not be a free-for-all zone where anyone with good intent can just show up. Even if just trying to help, everyone doing this at once causes more problems than it helps. Ie, if you have a bunch of canned goods, find out who nearby can handle these and deliver them, rather than try to deliver yourself. There are plenty of charities to contact in all these cases. If roads are blocked or drones are in the sky then these will interefere
Re: (Score:2)
That would be great -- if the authorities were trying to deliver anything instead of sitting on their thumbs and actively destroying [wbtv.com] supplies that other people already had on the ground.
But FMEA was counterproductive at the time and FAA was prohibiting anyone else from even trying. Buttigieg eventually conceded that his people were getting in the way of Musk's people helping, but you shouldn't have to be the richest person in the world in order to get the FAA to agree to delivering supplies.
Re: Conditions (Score:2)
This is fundamentally the issue. You see this as some kind of conspiracy whereas the reality is fact checkers are normal people usually under time duress.
No, I don't see any kind of conspiracy, that's all you. I see people who claim to be fact checkers, are paid as such, and they draw an obviously incorrect conclusion. How can it be time duress when they themselves found material that contradicted their own verdict?
Besides, what's the point of fact checkers if they themselves have to be fact checked? I'd have to concur with Fuckerberg on the notion that a community notes feature (which admittedly I haven't seen yet) is probably a better idea. No more arbiter
Re: (Score:2)
the matter in dispute is whether they blocked SpaceX helicopter flights
They're blocking random asshats from flying around a disaster site. That's not the same as blocking what those asshats happened to be delivering. Since you have such a raging hate-boner going on why not also claim they blocked delivery of water because the pilot had a bottle with him.
Facile beyond belief.
Re: (Score:3)
Critical disaster relief delivery by helicopter isn't an act of "random asshats".
It is if they aren't coordinating with the emergency services, and doing something (flying) which always requires coordination with the authorities. Disaster relief isn't a free-for-all.
Note that the Politifact very carefully and politically chose to misinterpret
No they did not. This is alternative reality level bullshit. This had nothing to do with "blocking starlink" and everything to do with "managing airspace". But "FEMA an
Re: (Score:2)
Those are your personal assumptions supported solely by over generalization
No all you've done is take that, added a bunch of histrionics and rounded it up "herp derp gubbmint si teh evul musk is my persident".
Politifact should have ruled the discussion as "mixed" instead of completely false.
No, because it's politFACT not polit-equal-weight-to-moronic-opinions-with-no-basis-in-fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I cited facts
No you cited your rather perverse opinions based on the facts. That's not the same.
I don't worship Musk
You clearly do. I mean you believe his shit about "free speech". You are free to say edgy stuff that Musk likes on twitter. Big woop.
Re: (Score:2)
I love it! Make shit up then when you reach the end of that road claim you're bored. At least you conceded even if in the least elegant way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Critical disaster relief by self appointed do-gooders who hadn't bothered to check with authorities first, hadn't coordinated with local charitable efforts. A possibility that they were listening to misinformation that Biden admin was denying aid. You show up uninvited in an helicopter at the same time that actual emergency workers need the airspace clear for their own use are just causing disruption. That's just common sense.
Plus they're bringing Starlink devices, hardly an emergency need. Get food and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a fan of this one [politifact.com]. Reading the law makes it clear that a 17 year old in possession of a long arm is not, in fact, violating the law except under specific conditions that were not present in this case. The judge in the case dismissed the charge as a matter of law when the DA stipulated that those specific conditions did not apply. Politifact still claims that it is correct in its interpretation of Wisconsin law, ignoring the actual, you know, facts. I guess that's the "politi" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks completely accurate to me. They were not blocking Musk or SpaceX or Starlink specifically, as the claim was. They were not deliberately trying to prevent people there getting internet access, for whatever nefarious reason the conspiracy claimed.
They were enforcing the normal rules around a disaster area, which as with the recent drone strike on an aircraft trying to put out fires in California demonstrates, are definitely needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact checking is good. Only people who want to lie hate the facts, or hate being corrected when they're wrong. Like Zuckerberg. If the facts make you upset then the problem is with you and not the facts. If you think the fact checkers are wrong, then provide your own facts or point out the errors. We should never be discouraged from pointing out errors or correcting our own errors for some brief partisan bullshi.
These aren't even a political item, as fact checking will and have corrected people of all p
Re: (Score:3)
Stop trying to make "Biden laptop" happen! It's not going to happen!
Well, it's been five years and everyone involved is pardoned at this point, so definitely not going to happen. But if you're still maintaining this was somehow a "Russian Hoax" or similar, you're either ignorant of the facts or lying.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] notes:
In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac.[1][11][12] FBI investigators handling Hunter Biden's laptop quickly concluded in 2019 "that the laptop was genuinely his and did not seem to have been tampered with or manipulated".[13][14] In June 2024, federal prosecutors utilized the laptop as evidence as part of a criminal case against Hunter Biden, alongside testimony from an FBI agent involved in authenticating and investigating the laptop.[15]
Links from Hunter to Joe are more fleeting, and "10 percent held by H for the big guy" can certainly refer to other persons. But this does not change that simply discussing this issue on social media leading up to the 2020 election got your content (and possib
Re:Conditions (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate is as valid and common and necessary a human emotion as love. It is frightening that they would try to ban anyone from experiencing or expressing a basic human emotion.
The freedom to like, love, hate, dislike, or be indifferent to, is the very foundation of freedom.
And if you dislike something, for whatever reason, it is your right as a human to do so ⦠even to tell people that you dislike it.
My guess is they just drum up popular support to ban something, and then they are free to define th
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up feeling versus action.
Feel whatever you want to feel. Nobody's arguing against feeling hate or disliking things. Nobody's advocating to ban emotions. (Your argument is a straw man.)
But actions affect other people. If someone says threatening things about you, or about an entire group you belong to, to the extent that you'd reasonably fear for your life or your safety, that is an action and a serious one.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect there's a bit of naivete, or possibly some twinge of autism that isn't understanding the issue, but the whole "they can't ban an emotion!" really sounds like some 12 year old with little experience in the real world and not looking at the details being baffled by the concept.
Re: (Score:2)
It is frightening that they would try to ban anyone from experiencing or expressing a basic human emotion.
You misunderstand hate speech. They are not banning speech that has hate. They can say "I hate my job", "I hate my boss", etc. They are banning speech that deliberately incites hatred towards specific classes of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Meaning you have a good chance of getting into legal trouble if you say "we need to kill all the Pythonistas!" Similarly, don't give NSDAP salutes intentionally to promote the neo-NSDAP parties, don't give those salutes in an attempt to intimidate mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, they have plenty of great comedians. Some even deliberately try to step over the boundaries. You can be funny without needing hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we in America know who won and what the war was for. The snag is that there are a bunch of holdouts who keep trying to rehabilitate the rebels and claim it was just about a genteel way of life or over economic issues.
What Are the Odds . . . (Score:2)
If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:4, Informative)
Use the word “cisgender” on Twitter and your account will be flagged.
Re:If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:5, Funny)
That's because Elon Musk is secretly a transsexual reptilian wearing human skin he harvested soon after he emerged from the Hollow Earth.
Re:If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But ArchieBunker's head is.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a room AND a camera to stream it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are joking but it's actually really awful. He used to be okay with trans people, until his daughter came out as transgender. He was hoping she would be his heir, who of course has to be male, and they are now estranged because of his poor treatment of her.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've done it, you've pissed off the flatearthers wth your heresy!
Re: (Score:2)
No need to tell me what my eyes saw, dear, thank you.
And bless your Nazi apologist heart.
Re: (Score:2)
Simplistic? Oh, dear, what is so complicated about a fat fuck sieg-heiling his victory over democratic elections? And do you ever have words of your own, or do you always quote shit you've picked on 4chan?
Re: (Score:2)
The background of Orwell is good to know. He was a socialist, and he saw how Stalin was seriously screwing things up for other socialists and other left wingers, which is why his Animal Farm is an open satire of Stalin and Soviet communism, but not a diatribe against socialism as a whole.
Also, it's really weird that you shove AOC and Newsom into the same category of Mao and Pol Pot.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing upsetting about you.
You're boring, as you cannot stay on topic.
The topic is: a fat, unelected Nazi did a Nazi salute twice at one of the most important public events in your country.
Just as a no name with no education and a biography of petty crimes, propelled by the fat Nazi fuck's money began ruling by illegal decrees.
You should read your solzhenitsins and especially your orwells only after acquiring basic functional literacy.
Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking folks that value libertarian ideals like blind justice and free speech must be falsely labeled a "Nazi"
Really, now? Which "thinking folk" with "libertarian ideas" have I "labelled" a "Nazi"?
The only Nazi under discussion here is the fat grifter, whose money came about because of government subsidies. That illegal immigrant from South Africa, who threw two Nazi salutes yesterday while lining up for more government grift and for a government hand to help him beat his competition, because he can't do it on price and quality.
The very same guy who supports with your tax dollars the resurgence of neo-Nazis in Euro
Re: (Score:2)
your stubborn refusal to address the issue at hand and substitute irrelevant boilerplate quotes instead, while throwing around labels is very amusing, my inept Nazi apologist.
Go on, bark some more :}
Re: (Score:2)
Context is very relevant.
elona was celebrating her win over democracy. and it was cheap - she only spent less than $300M on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, spot on, scumbags like the senile grifter and rapist in the Whitehouse or his Nazi handler, the nutcase with bad brain rot from all that "prescription ketamine" are good examples.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. Musk was stupid to do it, but likely he was just ignorant or having inability to deal with certain social situations.
On the other hand, it might not be autism. Because Musk met with the leader of the AfD who was defending the, er, NSDAP(*) claiming they were actually socialists and not right wing, that old retcon story that no one really believes. Also was making smoochy noises at Nigel Farage (who rebuffed him).
Possibly the gesture was M
Re: (Score:2)
Lol you believe the earth is round?
Oblate Spheroid, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the word you are looking for is either "man" or "woman"....you know, terms that cover the vast majority of people inhabiting planet earth.
You know....normal human beings.
Use man or woman...and I'll bet you never get flagged AND as a side benefit, everyone will know just what the fuck you're talking about, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there are human beings that don't easily fit into male or female categories, despite speeches to the contrary. It's basic biology that intersex exists. We're not even talking about transgender or changing genders. To declare them non-humans is a bit harsh, just to satisfy the the beliefs of religious voters in the divine binary. Firm believe in the "science" learned in kindergarten doesn't match the actual complexity of fetal and human development; there are XY humans who clearly appear in all t
Re:If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened to bringing free speech back to twitter?
Re: (Score:2)
It's free speech over on X, as long as you comply with the general political stance of X's owner. But that's fine if there's no free speech, because there's no law that mandates free speech by private citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:4, Insightful)
But it matters immensely in the realm of women's sports. Athletics should be welcoming to everybody and I would love to see all transgender women competing. But they need to compete either in a transgender division or as men based on their biological sex.
That the Democrats insist on letting biological males play women's sports is enough that, if Trump were a sane Republican candidate (yes they are getting few and far between) I would have voted for him over Harris.
I guess Democrats can continue to lose elections over this issue for as long as they want, though.
Fake Science (Score:2)
> the only objectively correct term
There is no such thing. Humans define terms, not nature. Nature doesn't give a flying fudge what humans call stuff. To claim a "scientifically proven definition" is a flaw.
A definition can be tied to a scientifically tested concept, but that tying itself was a human decision, nature didn't force any tying.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait you flag people for the use of a technical term regardless of context? There really is an idiot here, but it's not the person you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Great idea in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
>"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 mandate it. But because it is just the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if it is in person, or over the internet, named or anonymous. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great idea in theory (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
because you are too much of a coward to tolerate it.
I'm pretty wary of people calling for my death, you know, especially as such calls have been actioned at scale before.
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"
And the reason for that is to prevent people from being offended by something they BELIEVE or FEEL is racist and sexist. And the reality is, the listener can interpret most anything as "racist" or "sexist" depending on his/her beliefs and mindsets...
If someone said "generally, women show more emotion than men" or "overall, per-capita, blacks co
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!
Re: (Score:2)
>"Would you rather be lied to courteously (never mind the contradiction), or told the truth harshly?"
Would you rather be not allowed to hear the truth because someone else decides it is a lie when it isn't? Or possibly "offensive"?
>"As someone who was taught (and still believe) that honesty is the best policy, I know which one I would choose!"
I was taught the golden rule, and believe it in. I was also taught that honesty is the best policy, and believe that, too. But I was taught told that sticks a
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have the right to not be offended in a free country.
There's no such thing as a free country. Your entire life is constantly governed by laws, maybe not speech but definitely countless others. Even tribal societies established rules that limit ones freedom.
And given that America tops the world in number of incarcerated people per capita one could argue it's the least free country of them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally the mindset of the listener is only a small part of it, at least in Europe. Freedom of expression is a human right here, so the bar for hate speech has to be set very high.
Typically that means that the speaker had to have intended it has hatred of a group, and a reasonable person hearing it would have interpreted it that way. Proving intention is difficult but not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
kind, tolerant, and courteous
Questions. In your opinion, does kind, tolerant, and courteous describe the people who advocate for hate speech laws? Do the proponents of said laws, generally speaking, refrain from hateful speech themselves?
Obviously you do not know everyone, but of the ones you encounter, do they generally exhibit these traits?
Not rhetorical or argumentative, just curious, I live in Seattle which may be the least tolerant, most conformist place on earth, where everyone considers themselves
Re: (Score:2)
>"Obviously you do not know everyone, but of the ones you encounter, do they generally exhibit these traits?"
I can only say most of the people I personally know are against so-called "hate speech" laws and are, indeed, kind, tolerant and courteous people. But that is not a representation of the population at large. The few people I know who would support "hate speech" laws are also kind, tolerant and courteous people. However, I tend to not associate with anyone who isn't kind, tolerant and courteous.
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)
It's simple. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill, there are more important issues.
Re: Great idea in theory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that all agree with.
There's no such thing as all agreeing to something. That's not how democracy works. Democracy is tyranny of a majority, you may not think what you're doing is hate speech but that is actually irrelevant. You need to get a majority to agree with you that something isn't hate speech and use that majority to get the appropriate rules put in place.
E.g. In America the majority have clearly decided that hate speech should not be a crime at all. In places in Europe anti-hate speech laws have been passed and have m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I oppose truly hateful stuff, like racist rants
Unpopular speech is the only speech that needs protecting.
Rants are words. They arenâ(TM)t actions. I rant all the time. Like when someone cuts me off it traffic. I say all kinds of crazy shit. Sometimes people hear me. Sometimes they laugh. Sometimes they rant back. I never carry it out, and I oppose your opposition to whatever the fuck I want to rant about and I hope I never have to get a permission slip from my self appointed betters first. If a
Holy books full of crap (Score:2)
The UK government is currently leaning to "yes".
Tech Firms Sign EU Pledge To Tackle Free Speech (Score:3)
If you thought free speech was dangerous, censorship is even worse.
It’s pretty funny (Score:4, Insightful)
It’s almost like they’ll say and do whatever is good for business.
I guess I don’t really have a problem with this. That’s capitalism. But nobody should be under any illusions that these companies adhere to any sort of higher moral or ethical code. This is about money.
Re: (Score:2)
>"earlier this morning executives from the same companies were lined up to give Trump a fist-up salute that would have been right at home in WW2 Italy."
Or it might be they realized what they were doing was un-American. And even though it is allowed here by private companies, it was/is a horrible idea.
>"Itâ(TM)s almost like theyâ(TM)ll say and do whatever is good for business."
Or it is almost like they are going to follow the laws of the countries in which they are doing business. As long a
Re: (Score:2)
They may need to have different rules for EU and US users.
Nothing can save Twitter though.
Re: (Score:2)
The Europe side can redact portions they don't like:
US Version: "People from the country of Elbonia are lazy smelly dog-eaters."
Europe Version: "People from the country of Elbonia are [redacted under EU law 123]."
Define "hate speech" (Score:4, Informative)
So, is calling Mr Habeck (Germany) a "schwachkopf" hate speech? The German police thought so.
What about calling out the illegal immigrant who just stabbed three young children in your neighborhood? The UK thought it was.
What about freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights? "Hate speech", even if you could define it sensibly, is still speech, and a valid personal opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The hate speech thing is very nefarious and is being used by organized / paid groups to hide mass crimes and terrorist activities like in the UK people are getting arrested for reporting or complaining about deadly crimes while the actual criminals are running around freely and even gloating on social media
Such things need to be banned even if new laws are required for that, it doesn't matter if it's a private company - once you have 10s of millions of users you have to be held responsible. Else yo
of course they did - double dipping (Score:2)
Voluntary (Score:3)
These platforms will do fuck all with a voluntary committment. Their lips will flap, they'll make pretend initiatives, they'll make pretend progress reports and the problem will still persist while the problem continues. Meanwhile, certain platforms like X will be actively undermining European democracy.
Europe should be issuing directives - either you abide by the codes we set down or we will punish your platform and / or the stakeholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe should be issuing directives - either you abide by the codes we set down or we will punish your platform and / or the stakeholders.
Europe will. They are just giving these enterprises a chance to fix their act first. That is good style. Afterwards, when they have failed, the can be hit with the big hammer. Which is also why those enterprises will be excessively stupid if they do not make a credible effort.
Let me explain (Score:2)
Person 1: I hate Jews - this is fine
Person 2: I hate white people - this is fine
Person 3: I hate black people - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Define “hate speech” (Score:2)
b. Who gets to define what is “hate speech”.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
I think anyone who makes claims should have some evidence. Don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be AI yet, I don't think AI is at that point yet. Instead there are algorithms that automatically do this based upon keywords and the like. Rather than paying lots of sub-minimum wage workers to rapidly moderate with only a second or two to look at each one.
(Yes, some of these companies did have workers who were given quotas to look at pictures that were flagged as offensive to determine if they were against the terms of service or not. Many of these workers claim it was the worst job they ever
Re: (Score:2)
Here is one example from one of the largest companies in the world - Microsoft.
AI moderation is currently being used in many Activision games. Activision is owned by Microsoft. People are getting banned from communicating for days simply because the AI didn't like what they said. Sure, this isn't life changing, but when this same tech gets rolled out to every companies communications and every forum, it will be.
Activision came out and said, "Yea, its broken, we'll tune some dials" -> https://www.ca [callofduty.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't AI, my friend. Some simple software is just looking at the chat text or the automated transcription of the voice calls and spotting words or phrases that match something in a list. The list will typically contain curses, slurs, hate speech, etc. If it were AI it would probably evaluate the context as well and do a better job.
But I do know what you mean. I was flagged in a game once for typing OMFG. I discovered that OMG was seen as acceptable, my behavior was corrected. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The Scunthorpe problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I am certain people live in Scunthorpe, but the computer demands age verification before I can contact them. Instead, I only knew a tiny number of people who used to live there.
Now, Threadneedle, that's an outright street of depravity! A much more subtle allusion to the trade. Which I think was the inspiration for Terry Pratchett's "Guild of Seamstresses". Though today, Threadneedle is a much more staid financial district with large stodgy firms proudly using its name, including the Bank of England. The b
Re: (Score:2)
AI moderation will boil down to maximizing potential ad revenue. If hate speech drives away viewers it will moderate that, if the hate speech causes a spike in revenue because the racists suddenly feel welcome then it will let it go. Best of all if a giant flame war ensues resulting in lots of views and revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
I am trying to interpret the broken grammar here, and think there are a few negatives missing.
The only joint EU armed force is Frontex, a combined army from all EU members that is tasked with patrolling the frontiers, little more than combined customs and coast guard. Each single EU country has its own military, though since most EU countries are NATO members as well there is some commonality of equipment. Most EU countries cut back on their military spending in the past 30 years or so, essentially since th