Major Tech Firms Sign EU Pledge To Tackle Hate Speech (theverge.com) 72
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:3)
Re:Conditions (Score:5, 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, where presumably they're paid to do that) but they had established that, in fact, flights were being blocked, even though it was cleared up a short time later. But they rate it false anyways. Go figure.
When it came out that the Biden admin were yelling at fecebook for not removing information that they knew to be accurate, the first thought on my mind is how that is fully consistent with the twitter files. The whole thing reeks of people wanting to control the popular narrative, and/or fact checkers doing some rent seeking without actually doing anything more than just googling shit. And how many fact checkers rated the biden laptop story as false? Wouldn't be surprised if the "official" fact checker, Karine Jean-Pierre, even knew otherwise at the time she was actively denying it; she's about as dishonest as they come, watching her speak is like watching a Saturday Night Live parody of a press secretary.
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: (Score:2)
Requiring permission to fly into a disaster zone is not the equivalent of FEMA saying "no you can't have a Starlink".
Or you know, you could read the actual source material politifact itself presents? To wit, the matter in dispute is whether they blocked SpaceX helicopter flights from delivering starlink terminals to the affected area. These flights were carrying starlink terminals, thus they were effectively denying delivery. Who was exactly, we're not certain. It's quite possible that some government coordinator said it was FEMA when it was actually a state agency. Whoever these fact checkers are, they just rated it as f
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: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)
That's perfectly fine, as long as you don't do business in Europe, where there is such a thing as illegal hate speech, since we had a couple of fairly nasty wars that left lasting marks. I doubt US citizens really know what having a war on their home soil is like, the last one was over a century ago and they have not decided who won and what it was for yet. And while Europeans do have protected speech there is no such thing as the first amendment in most European countries. Oddly enough, US law does not app
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA there is no such thing as illegal "hate speech."
That's fine and all, but like many Americans you fail to realise that the USA isn't the only country on earth and that this story is about Europe. Many European countries have laws making hate speech illegal, and in several countries the hate speech is clearly defined.
Meanwhile, if you don't want to read something, then don't.
The issue is not reading something, it's having something forced in front of you algorithmically. Imagine you're watching a movie, you don't suddenly get to not hear a or not see a line of dialogue you disagree with. You can't mute the algorit
What Are the Odds . . . (Score:2)
AI Moderation Stifles Free Speech (Score:2, Insightful)
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 sp
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:1)
automod = cheaper
But that was more evidence than you deserve, you waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
The Scunthorpe problem.
rsilvergun is a raging fucking moron (Score:2)
It sounds like I'm trolling
No, you just sound as stupid as you are. Moreover, why the fuck are you incapable of making an argument without creating disinformation? You and amimojo share that in common. You two are exactly the kind that fact checkers were supposed to correct, and yet that hasn't worked, has it?
By the way, any time I reply to a post where you changed the subject to some meaningless crap and for no good reason, I'm just going to change it to 'rsilvergun is a raging fucking moron'.
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:4, 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:1)
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:If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened to bringing free speech back to twitter?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: If you’re wondering what hate speech is (Score:1)
My former account there was banned for using the word 'tranny'.
Your point?
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, Insightful)
Literally from your own link:
“ The various laws that refer to "hatred" do not define it.” goes on to say it has been defined by cases brought before the court. So basically legislation by courts. Seems broken to me so far, letting courts set the law, but allow me to continue..
Essentially, if a group can be identified and unwelcome speech is given about the group, it is “hate speech”.
Good luck standing up for anything. Because anyone targeted by that speech can be identified based on
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:1)
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:3)
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:3)
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)
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
Holy books full of crap (Score:1)
The UK government is currently leaning to "yes".
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
Tech Firms Sign EU Pledge To Tackle Free Speech (Score:2)
If you thought free speech was dangerous, censorship is even worse.
It’s pretty funny (Score:3)
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
Define "hate speech" (Score:1)
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:1)
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.