Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eric Schmidt Proposes 'Hate Spell-Checker' For Radical and Terrorist Content (nytimes.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-haven't-thought-this-through dept.

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.

14 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Go fuck yourself by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kindly go fuck yourself.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  2. Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by bfwebster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, fascists and fanatics want to censor things.

      Either because people don't agree with your politics, or your religion, or your choice of text editor, or flavor of ice cream.

      I consider people who want to resort to censorship to be essentially morally bankrupt assholes.

      But then, this is Eric Schmidt. So I already considered him one.

      I cringe at how readily Western society is prepared to become unhinged and start throwing away our freedoms in order to claim to be protecting our freedoms.

      Beware the guy who wants to cut through such things in order to achieve their agenda. Because in the end they'll stop at nothing and utterly fail to see the problems they're creating.

      I don't want to live in a world where some asshole billionaire is the arbiter of what can and can't be said.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the crowd that wants the First Amendment cancelled, and the crowd that wants the Second Amendment cancelled, are the same crowd.

    3. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Schmidt has always been an idiot in these kinds of matters. He either doesn't understand why some people would be freaked out by his solution or not trust it, or he realizes that but doesn't care.

      This will work until governments start using it to censor speech that most people feel should be heard. Then the service will collapse and be replaced by something that is more free.

      People need to understand that if you don't like what someone is saying, the way to stop them isn't to censor them or limit their speech, it's to use your own free speech to tell everyone why they're wrong. Suppressing speech does nothing to changes the hearts and minds of those who might agree with it and only serves to make that person appear a victim of your oppression, no matter how pure your motives may be. If you want to shut down terrorist groups like ISIS on social media, the best way to do so is to ridicule them. Who wants to join a group that's a complete laughingstock?

    4. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure where you find the pro 2nd anti 1st crowd. I see the opposite in terms of who attempts to undermine and want's to cancel the First Amendment. Mainly the same people that want Government spying on them so anti 4th amendment, and believe that the only way to be safe is by living inside the government fist so anti 2nd. Politicians tend to swing to which ever way the wind blows, but mainly toward pro censorship anti gun, because it improves people's dependency on their aspirations.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the crowd that wants the First Amendment cancelled, and the crowd that wants the Second Amendment cancelled, are the same crowd.

      Sadly, no:

      http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

      Strange how so many fans of the First Amendment forget that there's more to it than freeze peach.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. If you want to combat ISIS, you need to give clear and thorough critiques of sharia, and radical islam. Tamping down on "anti-muslim speech" or "pro-sharia speech" isn't the answer - having a robust marketplace of ideas is.

      Who knows, maybe one day islam will have its reformation period, and violent jihadis will be just as embarrassing to them as the Inquisition is to catholics.

    7. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the side who is against the first amendment is also the side against the second amendment. the millennial democrats

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hilarious example, given the context.

      The only Catholics that are embarrassed by the Inquisition are the ones that never learned why there was one in the first place. In case you need a hint to get started, ask yourself what had been happening in Spain for the ~700 years prior.

      The Crusades are much the same. They weren't just a random Christian rampage out of the blue, but a response to something external. In the case of the Crusades, about 400 years worth of that something.

      Perhaps you've been talking to public school teachers and students, and not actual Catholics?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    9. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Right and Left love to abridge speech, just different angles of it.

      Nobody remembers the "Fairness Doctrine", and yet it keeps getting promoted by the left to quash the free speech rights of people they disagree with. By "Fairness" the left means "Hey, we can't compete in the world of ideas, freely expressed, lets limit the other side by making it about "fairness".

      While the right typically targets specific kinds of speech, the left has pretty much declared war on any speech that isn't their version of "correct" (aka Politically Correct). They gleefully are willing to shout down with hate filled speech anyone that disagrees with them.

      They will deny a permit for the KKK to rally, but are all for "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" and "Burn this bitch down" (Inciting to riot). Why? Because they support the cause in one case, and oppose it in another. This is exactly the same as those on the Right that do the exact same thing.

      So if your point was that only Right Wingers are against free speech, you are sadly mistaken. The left is filled with people who hate free speech and see it as a danger to their socialist agenda.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Another thought... by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  4. He preaches hate speech and terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Trump by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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