Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt Proposes 'Hate Spell-Checker' For Radical and Terrorist Content (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt has proposed the creation of 'tools' to stop or limit the spread of messages and content intended to recruit terrorists. Schmidt says: "We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice."
Schmidt does not enlarge on whether he is talking about AI-driven systems capable of understanding thought well enough to make value judgments on it, or of the problems involved in auto-censoring speech in order to promote his vision of a new rapport between cultures on the internet.
Schmidt does not enlarge on whether he is talking about AI-driven systems capable of understanding thought well enough to make value judgments on it, or of the problems involved in auto-censoring speech in order to promote his vision of a new rapport between cultures on the internet.
Kindly go fuck yourself.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Seriously? Seriously? He really doesn't recognize the full implications of what he's proposing? Time to drag out my favorite passage from Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons":
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
This seems like a good idea, but not because it will actually work.
It's good because it might shut up the "low information" voters who think that "something must be done", and it will give the politicians something that they can use to shut up said constituents. Yet since it's not actually going to, you know, work, it's a pretty good distraction tactic.
Sentiment analysis for negative emotions? Is this anything more than thought-crime? Sounds like something straight out of Equilibrium.
Perhaps I should start practicing my "Gun-Kata's" and burying books.
Am I the only one who fights with spell checkers repeatedly every single day? (Due to their ineffectiveness and overzealousness, not to common misspellings, for which they are marginally more convenient than simply looking at the word, seeing it misspelled, then spelling it correctly). I recall George R.R. Martin saying much the same thing as to why he still uses WordStar 6 to write his novels. The dictionaries are rigid and language is not.
I sure hope they're going to let us in on a little bit of that good government AI if they really want us to take them seriously.
They hate you and what you have to say. They hate you. Hate you and want you to never say the things you say. Liberal demoncraps are truly the party of hate.
I see you are trying to write a plot to bomb a famous landmark! Allow me to help you with that.
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you write that.
And as soon as everyone agrees it's good to censor posts by Daesh, Google and/or the government will decide they also need to censor posts by protestors, dissidents, and other "undesireables." Go fuck yourself Eric.
Any censorship has to be effective against every person, ever. But people are pretty clever
our hysterical corporate overlords.
This Muslim hysteria is turning out to be the best serous action and comedy on in one popcorn flick ever.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Candy ass faggot. Grow a pair and be man.
Don't be a big fucking baby and demand a "safe space" to protect your "delicate" self.
He's on to something.
But rather than a simple 'hate checker' that could suggest alernatives, why not go the whole hog.
CLIPPY: "I notice you are talking hate on the internet. Do you need help? [Yes] [Obviously]"
The NSA already is keyword searching with Echelon and probably has their snooping services in Google already. I suppose if you encrypted it with a non-compromised encryption they wouldn't be able to get at it as easy, but you'd have to get that spell-check into every app and the terrorists would just use something else that is not compromised.
So, we design machines that can censor much more intelligently based on "hate" and then move onto what? "Annoyance", "Offence", "Impropriety", "Unpatriotic". If speech isn't directly disruptive, it should be tolerated, plain and simple.
Just think of all the poor 10 yo's posting in WoW trade chat.
What will they do?
"First they came for the posters of hate speech"
"Then they came for people who objected to TPP"
"Then they came for me."
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I think it would be wrong to censor. Our very freedom of speech is our greatest freedom. Why would we cave to such things in order to stop these evil people?
Gee, I expected better then this from Eric Schmidt. Where is the backbone from American's these days? What we should be doing is bombing the crap out of these terrorists long time ago. Stop with the long list of engagement rules, the concern for collateral damage. Do you really think these terrorists care about collateral damage to us? Folks, its down to them or us. What's it going to be?
If ISIS wants to survive, it has to pay a livable wage like anyone else... We can drop the religious bullshit any time now...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
China tries to do this this to an extent with their Great Firewall.
They fail by a very large extent.
What should be done is that commercial entities that emulate RTLMC over the air should have their licenses pulled. All this needs is a slight change to the Communications Act of 1934.
Hate sells, but you're not allowed to make money with it on public spectrum. Do it elsewhere. Go suck a lemon, Roger Ailes.
--
BMO
China has been censoring posts for a decade. Posters then create synonyms that mean prohibited topics. Live censors then catch on and the posters create new ones.
is still censorship.
There's an entire crowd of people who hate the second amendment who hate the first amendment as well. They're willing to eliminate both.
and a cracker too. He is The Man, and the Man is keeping us down
How to differentiate hate speech and a discussion of hate speech. This is the same issue as the method that tried to censor pornographic images by using skin colour. Too many non-pornographic images, such as medical drawings, were censored.
These anti terrorist measures would really improve my experience on (insert online multiplayer game name here) chat by coming down on all the 10 year old shitlords.
to live in East Germany. If you see something, say something.
Kind of reminds me of what the Catholic church did to Galileo. Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean you get to censor it. Who determines what is a terrorist group? Is #BlackLivesMatter or the black panthers a terrorist group? Is the KKK?
Leave the internet free and open. Leave it to the warring nations to figure out what they want to call terrorist recruitment.
So scrolling down the page there's the expected attack piece on Donald Trump's proposal to curtail internet access for jihadis.
And here's the piece about Schmidt's suggestion on how to actually implement it.
Funny how things work.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Think of all the harm not allowing hate speech could do. Um, I'm sure I'll think of some... at some point. Yes, yes! We must be outraged at the thought that someone would limit any speech, even hate speech. After all, mother England would never do such a thing! Damn, she already did. Well, certainly any algorithm capable of identifying specific recruiting tactics by ISIS would also hone in on classics, such as Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons". But, any algorithm could likely be taught to ignore known passages from published books. Let's just agree that Eric Schmidt is a complete imbecile and that his ability to create Google was based solely on luck and not intelligence. That way, we can demonize him instead of rationally considering the alternative: that an intelligent algorithm could actually block online recruiting efforts.
You know, the kind of stuff that is used to have ignorant folk support these endless wars of (profit) terror?
Schmidt - you're a dickbag.
PC double speak enforced by the minders' electronic eye.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"Need help planning your next Jihad? Call 1-800-4JIHADS"
"Looking for devout women who will treat you like a caliph? Visit maskedhotties.com"
"Have you or a loved one contracted lung disease while training in the desert to be an ISIS warrior? Go to mesothelioma-kills-killers.com for information on receiving remuneration for your illness.
Shirlely the system should also target anti-Muslim rhetoric as one of the recruitment tools for ISIS and other extremist groups? When everybody is out to get you, you are going to get everybody. Works for spreading of STDs, works for spreading of terror think.
I'd be a lot more open to this creep's plan to censor everyone else if Google-owned YouTube wasn't the host of most every jihadi recruiting video ever made, many posted by specially designated terrorist entities which Google is forbidden by law to work with, under penalty of an ugly fine which is apparently never applied to the well connected. If a music company doesn't like the background song in a baby's first birthday video, it gets pulled so fast there is a whooshing noise as electrons rush in to fill the digital gap, but if someone complains that YouTube is in violation of the actual damn law against doing business with a specially designated terrorist entity, some YouTube employee will tell you that they have received your complaint, then do nothing.
So I have zero interest in this hypocrite being allowed to limit what I do or type onine while he sucks in ad dollars from scumbags watching innocent people get their heads hacked off.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Could use one on Slashdot, too.
Nerd -> Inwardly focused
Virgin -> Shy and fat
Fat -> Husky
Fatass -> Porkins
Star Wars watcher -> Person probably not female
Linux sucks -> Linux sux
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Schmidt is using Orwell's 1984 as a business plan.
Also, Schmdit is a German name and he must have had Stasi ancestors he looked up to.
Sure, you'll find islamic hate. You'll find christian hate. You'll find anti-gay hate.
But what's going to happen to all the SJWs who use violent rhetoric? Or the Jeremiah Wrights preaching that #blacklivesmatter?
Eventually, the only people left on the web will be Mormons and Buddhists.
This sort of thing is coming whether you like it or not. Freedom of speech is the freedom to oppress, and it's headed for the dustbin of history. Not accompanied by wailing and gnashing of teeth, but to thunderous applause.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I nominate google for the ministry of truth.
they are private networks google controls. However, I realized he is not proposing using them privately. He is proposing building APIs. Google is generally not evil (debate that somewhere else), but other people might be.
Software, as Asimov once demonstrated in I, Robot, cannot have ethical conscious itself. Remember in that case, the laws were imposed by humans.
--Sam
Eric Schmidt is a tool for wanting to throw away freedoms for a mosquito bite of a problem. Terrorists only win if you are terrorized! Morans!
Imagine a world were terrorists didn't get any publicity, where the public was like *meh* to all terrorist actions. Ironically you are giving them the impression that they matter (they don't... all western decline is self-induced btw) which encourages more to follow in their footsteps. Like the many animals that will chase you if you run, they think they're big only because you have treated them as such.
You can't defeat America or France by killing a few people at a time, you can however defeat America by preying on American ego and overreaction. Cost of 9/11: maybe 10 billion USD... cost of pointless wars: 10 trillion! That is an 'own goal' 1000x in self-damage. The US could have just bombed them for a few weeks from the sky for cheap and then left after gaining 'satisfaction'. I wonder what American airport foolishness is costing in lost GDP.
A perfect system to detect 'hate speech' or 'radicalization' would also be perfect for detecting 'dissidents' or just 'those we, in the ruling class, do not like or feel threatened by'.
Please, don't build a perfect AI panopticon for the internet. Just don't. And go watch Colossus: The Forbin Project just in case you're not worried enough. :p
Fight Uni!
"All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
Not only will it just "catch" way too many false positive, it will also be easily broken just by replacing certain letters with numbers or with a star. Like B*tch, sh*t, f*ck.
We wouldn't even be discussing this if speech like TRUMP's gets a total fucking pass like it's been getting in the US media, outside of special interest shows like Maddow.
Critical journalism in the US is largely fucking dead in the mainstream. Everyone is afraid they're going to lose their precious 'access' if they ask the tough questions and call people like TRUMP out on their bullshit.
Things like "The Interview" over at the BBC do not exist at all over here.
It's despicable. You're not journalists anymore. You're PR agents and 'entertainment.' Fuck off.
--
BMO
Just imagine if both presidential candidates were planning destructive nonsense like this.
Oh, wait....
CAPTCHA: frauds
He's right. Lots of these right-wing haters do need spellcheckers, that's for sure.
Will it also correctly label US Military recruitment materials as terrorist recruiting? If not then this is doomed to failure as it ignores the root cause.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Will it censor Christian terrorists too, or does it just single out Muslim terrorists? Fuck Eric Schmidt. He's a pig snot eating radical Satanist that worships donkey balls.
If you actually read through the article, it's largely a very generalized idea. He never said anything about censorship tools, nor about something that removes content that's "objectionable". He just said "tools".
Tools can be anything. It might be the censorship people are fearing, or it might be just something that allows you to find the people plotting crazy things and round up an opposition. Tools don't have to mean censorship, they can mean simply identification.
A spell checker doesn't STOP you from miss-spelling words, it only determines which words are miss-spelled. A tool that identifies hate speech can have a lot of different effects. You can still be hateful all you want, but others can see how hateful you've been in the past and choose to ignore you based on that. That's certainly not censorship.
Will all extremists will be required to have a Google+ account?
I have yet to see a single "image with text on it" facebook meme that didn't have spelling and/or grammatical errors. One thing that tells me for sure is that the generation that grew up with cell phones in their hands doesn't freaking know how to spell.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
A hate spell checker? Come now, Eric, we can do better: how about something along the lines of a Flesch-Kincaid Hate Index?
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
fuck all religious asshole. I screw the cold dead body of you gods and cum on their rotting face, everynight.
Can we also have it check for posts that support denying people their free-speech rights?
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
That is where it starts. How can we find terrorists if they aren't allowed to draw attention to themselves? Just like the RIAA 'removing pirated movies from Google Search Results' this concept is backwards. They should be using google to find the uploaders.
I love it! See guys, that's why this guy makes the big bucks.
It's hard to imagine more dangerous hate speech in a democratic society than calling for the automatic suppression of free speech.
He seems to be openly and directly inciting a form of domestic terrorism against the population, to be performed by corporations and government. He's always had questionable ethics, but this latest installment is quite beyond belief.
The same reason what this fool is proposing won't work is the same reason that y0u'd h4v3 50m3 pr0bl3m5 wr171n6 c0d3 70 und3r574nd 51mpl3 l3375p34k-3nc0d3d 73x7, 7h47 54y5 3r1c 5chm1d7 5uck5 b16 6r33n d0nk3y d0n65: 7h3 3nc0d1n6 c4n ch4n63 0n 4n h0ur-by-h0ur b4515, 4nd y0u'd n3v3r k33p up. k1d5 1nv3n73d l3375p34k 70 637 4r0und pr0f4n17y f1l73r5 0n 0nl1n3 f0rum5. d0n'7 y0u 7h1nk 7h47 73rr0r1575 4r3 601n6 70 b3 47 l3457 45 1nv3n71v3?
Additionally anyone can establish a code where one phrase means something else entirely; "I'm walking the dog in Central Park at 10:00am" translates to "I'm placing the IED in Central Park and detonating it at 10:00am". Good luck writing code that contextually gleans the true meaning of the former.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Instead we should let them spread their messages of hate and fear, and mock them accordingly.
I see your hatred, and raise you a few images that poke fun at your prophet.
What Eric is proposing is essentially Thought Police as depicted in 1984 by Orwell.
I wonder if this is the same Google executive who said we should not worry about privacy if we are not doing anything wrong.
If anything we should be critiquing ISIS videos on YouTube, tearing into them for the poor production value, bad acting, crappy cinematography, shitty writing, and last but not least how tiny their penises must be if they feel they need to post videos on YouTube that just scream "Look at us! Look at us! We're so awesome, we attack defenseless people, kidnap them, and cut off their heads! Ain't we the greatest!?". Be sure to put "Yakity Sax" music in the background. I'd sooner watch endless reruns of Jackass and Beavis and Butthead.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Questions of ones rights always comes up on this topic. Remember that these extremists are at war with the Western world. Maybe this filter is a good idea, after all.
Joe Almirantearena
Hey everyone who "loves" [people group].
Let's go get ourselves some BL58's (hint: B-1=A) and "shower" them with some fast-moving Pb.
I'm sure this will be so much fun that all of the papers will cover it.
Sincerely, Da Bad Guys
Maybe we need them to deliver sugar juice with some nasty other stuff, but surely we do need neither Google nor Facebook.
Here are some alternative approaches:
+ Raspberry PI behind your DSL router. Use dyndns from afraid.org to locate. Runs tons of services from file server to personal hompage
+ USENET. Imagine that, before Facebook we had a powerful discussion platform with REAL THREADS !
+ YaCY - Distributed Search Engine By The People For The People.
+ TOR and other anonymizers
+ BTX-Style alternatives to the bloated, insecure Browsers
+ Rust instead of the well-hackable C shite
Let them bring on their censorship craptastica, we route around it !
You aren't projecting the image you think you are, boy.
I [CENSORED] [CENSORED] when they [CENSORED] censor my [CENSORED] [CENSORED] speech aimed at [CENSORED]!
Signed,
[CENSORED] Engineer
This message was screened for hurtful language for your well being. Have a nice day!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Many of our society's "leaders" had said foolish things like this, including Democrats, Republicans, entertainers, editorialists and so-on, but this is DIFFERENT in a critical way
When Hillary or Jeb or Trump etc say such things, they are persons not particularly familiar with the way the internet works and who are usually addressing something like terrorism, kids being bullied, or phishing of the elderly etc and they are not thinking about it in a 1st amendment context, the broader context, the technical issues, etc. Such people are generally not proposing a specific policy at the time and would undoubtably pull-back when they have time to seriously consider the details.
When one of the people running Facebook or Google etc says it, there's a HUGE difference - these people know how the net works and are actively involved in altering it and manipulating it (and through it, its users) often in subtle and unpublicized ways. When THESE people say this stuff, it's very dangerous.
That is way in Evil territory Eric. Seize and desist. Those tools can go after anything anyone is offended by or worried about. They are a proposal for mass online censorship. They play right into the hands of enemies of freedom everywhere. That the executive chairman of Google, no less, would float such is one of the most terrifying things I have encountered. What the hell is the matter with you?
Enjoying the idea of a digital memory hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... a bit too much?
In the Soviet Union names, books, sentences, paragraphs, pictures, individuals also disappeared from art, culture, history and new editions of books.
Thanks to a big US brand that always enjoyed the full protections of the US Constitution books and thought will now be "corrected" on a per decade or month or weekly whim of a select few in the private sector? A multi national private sector with deep traditional links to the US gov and mil?
Who decides what is art, culture, history, free speech, freedom of the press when selling a brand an a open public forum?
A gov/mil backed AI? Database? A group of people based in the USA? EU? A pool of trusted language experts who helped the brand in the past? Select groups with their own digital ideas on what text, words or language is "safe" enough? A reporting flag and a herd of human oversight to ban books, news, blogs, forums, web pages from ever been found again? Topics and ideas from the first books to the first web media of the 1990's, 2000's just never get seen as valid search results ever again?
How about just been search engine again and let people find words, documents, books without a big private sector brand or gov or censorship trying to reshape the English language again and again? What kind of words and "type" of searches will be banned? Reported? Every search term tracked?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
put his head between his legs and kiss his own arse... then we would allow him to fuck off...
When I first read the subject, I thought they intended to use it against people who badmouthed terrorists, and not against the terrorists themselves. But that is because I have not really seen any particular concern about what the terrorists say about us, and a great deal of concern about our hate speech against terrorists.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Nice idea but freedom of speech is a fundamental right and even though sometimes we do not agree with or like the message they have the right to present it.
But will it filter out Trump supporters? He seems to be full of hate, and lots of people are terrified of him.
Besides, Trump has a way higher chance of messing up your life than some puny terrorist in some far-away desert.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This is America. If I want to include the words radical terrorism nuclear bomb the white house kill the president in every one of my messages, then I will. As should everyone.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Hate spell checker should be pretty easy. It would even catch this post.
I say put as many eyeballs on those public social media messages as you can. Don't push the messages unsolicited, just automatically create links to them, all in one place. What's a terrorist going to do about it- contact law enforcement? Ask a court to investigate him to determine whether the post was true or libelous?
Instead of Google Groups, Eric Schmidt could call it "Google Coups".
Trump's not an internet guy, not a programmer, not a guy who thinks about ones and zeros - he's like all the other politicians and pundits talking in broad strokes about the stuff we ought to think about (he has not proposed an actual policy or law) and in that regard is no different from lots of people all over the internet asking questions about guns, terrorism, security, spying, etc.
Schmidt IS a guy who knows about the ones and zeros and IS a person in a position to implement this sort of garbage with NO oversight, NO laws, etc. Google has been manipulating what people see and read, as a very profitable industrial activity, for many years. When a guy in THAT position says stuff like this, and particularly when his elbow is not on the bar at a pub next to a recently-drained glass, it's time to be very concerned.
This just confirms what I've suspected for a long time: Schmidt is a fascist, and that's not hyperbole.
It makes sense that western democracy and the technologies it creates shouldn't fight each other. This proposal is a conceptual idea, but one that is valid.
When they say "hatespeech", they actually mean "someone disagrees with me online".
Source: Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn literally said this when they testified before the United Nations about "violence against women online".
“Harassment doesn’t simply consist of what is legal and illegal, but also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” -- Anita Sarkeesian, before the UN, September 2015
The same guy who was hammering on the importance of free speech in defense of his contributions to the Proposition 8 (anti-gay-marriage law in California) campaign is now proposing a means of automated censorship?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
About time the anti-government company actually trys to do good. Eeking out every last 1/1,000,000 of a cent for advertising will not save humanity. Maybe Schmidt and company will apply their break power to eliminating terrorist propaganda
If so, i'm in
it really sucks when i forget to check "Post Anonymously" oops
A Chinese minister stated "Google is no longer creative and can only steal ideas such as ours!"
Kinda like putting them inside a anti-Dalek?
Person: My name is Osaba Bin Laden
Translator: My name is John.
Person: Death to all infidels!
Translator: Pleased to meet you.
It might cause some confusion, though...
I know how quickly some people like to decry "Freedom of Speech". They don't outright say it, but that's what they're advocating for.
But taken to its logical extreme, everything can be hidden with innocuous words and people, ingenious as the dickens, can find ways of skirting around the AI to get their point across.
Let's take a couple of examples where perfectly innocuous things become in some way malicious.
The word "banana". I think on Slashdot, more has been made of the banana's potential to go extinct than its use as a slur among Asians ("yellow on the outside, white on the inside!"). However unlikely it may be, if a group of Asians decided to get together one day and claimed it didn't like the word "banana" because of its racist implications, what then? We avoid using the word? Our computers and smartphones will give us a warning that this word may be "problematic"?
Or, how about "skiing"? In some circles, it's code for cocaine use, and therefore criminal activity. Are we then to censor the word "skiing" because someone, somewhere might use it to mean drug use instead of the sport?
(As an aside, would saying "ski the slopes" be both indicative of criminal activity and racism? Okay, long way to make that joke, I know. Also, since I'm Asian, I get a pass on making that joke, right?)
Point I'm making is, trying to censor every little thing because it sounds like something someone, somewhere might object to is a bad idea. Because anybody can get it in their head that anything is bad if given the proper motivation.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Given how few and who owns the media, what is allowed to be said to you is already rather controlled.
Laughable really. If the 'hate spell checker' follows the same rigorous development and QA process as the new Chrome 47's spell checker, why worry?
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/KfrcFpWZVcA;context-place=forum/chrome
davecb@spamcop.net
I'll start
If (str.indexOf ("overeach") != -1) {
classification = enemyType.domesticTerrorist;
dispatchBlackHelicopters ();
}
Requiem for the American Dream
I think starting out with drug dealers would be far more constructive. It seems to me that "terrorist" is just a term thrown around to frighten and manipulate. Let's target shitty rap music and the "gangsta" trending lifestyle. I know kids that grew up in 3 story homes of combined income of $140k+ that try to act like a hardened criminal because it's appealing to certain youthful cultures. Pocket full of money and stealing dollar store items for a rush.
Let's target the rising gang members that cause more problems in the USA than terrorist overseas... Let me justify my statement. I was at a Waffle House and a SUR13 latin gang member was sitting on the roof of my car. I asked him many times politely to get off my car. It ended in a violent ass beating between me and three of his friends. I lost that one... And my car, a 1996 Lexus es300, was smashed up just as much as me. They even reached up under the car and cut any hose or wire they could reach. They said there going to come back and shoot up the Waffle House. Come to find out they dipped out on the bill and pushed a woman around like an 70s thug movie. The worst part was the leader of that group had a girlfriend that had to watch some innocent guy get a broken nose, bloody face, and over $2000 of damages done to his car just because he was a gang member trying to act all bad. They didnt take my wallet... It wasn't about money.
What's different about a shitty gang member and ISIS? Not much in my eyes. Sure it sucks that people die overseas but we have "terrorists" in our own hometowns that get away with it.
Look how many people died in the past 10 years from domestic gang violence. We don't send troops to the suburbs of Atlanta, LA, or Detroit. We send them to a desert country that feeds our oil demand and we wonder why our troops die.
As for foreign causalities, sorry... Your gangsters use bombs. Ours use baseball bats.
A peculiar use of English.
Eric Schmidt needs to start with censoring himself first. Seems like every time he opens his mouth, something stupid comes out. I really don't get how a toolbag like him has managed to get into such prominent positions. Doesn't give me much hope for society.
If congress doesn't have the authority to stop free speech, no one does. Heir Schmidt and his neo-nazi bandwagon just wants control. Hitler only had IBM punch card technology to take over the world; Google has....
except now we hide government surveillance behind "politicially correct" names. as long as we're only spying on "hateful people" it's perfectly okay! We'll even let the anonymous community define what's "hateful"! no chance of orwellian misuse there! :P
Yeah. That's gonna work. :-|
For about 30 seconds. Then all the haters will change their key words and tricky phrases and go on hating at people.
FOR EXAMPLE: I can say "YOU'RE AN IDIOT!" or I can say "You have the intellectual capacity of an atrophied amoeba."
Kosher Intakes Kosher Exhausts / 972's - Jews
Fourteenth Amendment Humanoids - Blacks
Jobstealers / Jeeves (SanJEEV, RaJEEV, etc.) / - South Asians
Scholarship snatchers - East Asians
Maintenance crews - Latinos
Terrorists / Suicide Bombers / TextileHeads®® - Southwest Asians / Middle Easterners / Muslims
Spell check has no clue if I intentionally misspell something or if a word is indeed spelled correctly but not English. Spell check also has no idea what the content of the document is. A dumb tool will eliminate content coming from either side. As much as I loathe the fanatic religious fundamentalists (ISIS, Boka Harom, Ted Cruz) we should not employ dumb tools to do the policing and especially not put Google in charge.
This will eventually result in censoring any thought that may not be popular. How would a terrorist be identified and what is stopping politicians from changing the definition to meet their own personal agenda? It will eventually lead to anyone criticizing politicians, the US Government, or even corporations to be censored from sharing their thoughts. It's hard to define who is a terrorist. For example some people see people who attack planned parenthood clinics as heroes while others see them as domestic terrorists. What would be considered a hateful thought? Some believe that people who criticize the President or other politicians are committing hate speech. Some see people who criticize policies of the US Government as committing hate speech. This filter will be similar to filtering "thought crime" in the book 1984. Such a filter will render the First Amendment null and void. In addition, terrorist groups will simply use other means to recruit members off of the Internet.