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.

168 of 305 comments (clear)

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

    Kindly go fuck yourself.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Go fuck yourself by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Don't like it, don't use their messaging services. They don't belong to you.

    2. Re:Go fuck yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's hard to avoid censorship and infringement of speech from private companies when they have built and maintain the vast majority of all communication channels. Avoiding their messaging service assumes that there will also be an alternative available that doesn't do the same thing. I think we've seen all to well that as of late, social pressure has been able to get most every corporation to fall in line with the same game plan.

    3. Re:Go fuck yourself by lgw · · Score: 2

      Kindly go fuck yourself.

      Indeed. Oddly enough, there's a patent troll hiding under this bridge. A company I once worked for was sued by this patent troll that has a patent over using spell check to also check/filter offensive words, and specifically not just profanity but culture-specific offensive slang. In this specific case, the patent actually seems to apply as written and intended: extending a spell checker to block sending of offensive material based on a curated list of offensive words and expressions.

      It's a stupidly overbroad patent, but in this case I'm all for it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Go fuck yourself by halivar · · Score: 1

      Dear OverlordQ,

      I hope you're having a wonderful day so far. I am inquiring into whether it would be amenable for you, in the kindliest and gentlest way possible, to initiate forceful and vigorous lovemaking to the wonderful woman (a saint, really) who gave us, the world, the gift that is you.

      With kindest regards to you and yours,
      Halivar

      Sent from my Android with PolitiCorrect(R)

    5. Re:Go fuck yourself by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      How about using the spell checker to just monitor the text without filtering it?

    6. Re:Go fuck yourself by istartedi · · Score: 1, Funny

      OMG! It's already happening. He meant to say "fuck yourself with a 10-foot rusty pipe wrapped in barbed wire and smeared with Habanero peppers", but it was auto-corrected. Authorization: section 5, quoting for demonstration purposes. Signed, Director section 5, unit 3, December 8, 2015.

      p.s., I'm not sure how long that last hack will actually work. Grabbed the test sections and units off 4chan this morning.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    7. Re:Go fuck yourself by KGIII · · Score: 1

      While certainly true, I'm actually engaged in a project right this very minute (I'm just taking a break from getting things set up) where I'm going to do an entire online bit without spending a single penny of my own money. I'm not even going to host it on my own. I'll put up donations and anyone wishing to donate will get to help decide where any profits go (or probably just all donations as I really don't need the money but I want it to be self-funding if it escalates) so long as they go to a charitable cause.

      I'm actually, oddly enough, working on figuring a few other things out (I'll avoid spamming the URLs at this time) how to do exactly that for no cost at all. Well, no cost other than those fees already paid. I'm using SMF and TinyPortal as the front-end, at the moment, but I may end up just writing something myself. The first step is to make a site aimed at *something* and then create a separate site that's for less-topical speech and encourages others to participate. Who knows? It might be of value, at some point.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Go fuck yourself by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Sounds like far too much work. Think up some BS and set up a GoFundMe account.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    9. Re:Go fuck yourself by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I would consider that but it's kind of a race between a friend and I, the details of which I can't explain as it is expressly forbidden. The one of us who gets there first gets a reward, which is also not to be mentioned. Nor can I mention the actual goal but I can say it's not malicious. There must be a *something* and it must be organic and it must do *something* and it must not cost *something* with the winner getting *something* nice. We duel at dawn (or the 1st of the year) and it runs for a set period of time. Preparation is allowed.

      Yes, yes we might have been smoking when we came up with the idea. I'm quite certain that he'll cheat. Our significant others are to spy on us for the other person and to ensure the rules are followed. The *something* nice is actually not that significant but it's the game and the fact that it will be lorded over the other as a victory that is important.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Go fuck yourself by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Download an IRC chat client and call it a day.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  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 LesFerg · · Score: 1

      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.

      Now you're just talking crazy talk; everybody knows that vanilla flavor is best.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by johanw · · Score: 1

      "This will work until governments start using it to censor speech that most people feel should be heard"

      The US government is already using these tactics to censor discussion about people they really don't like, like Snowden or Manning. Claiming the subjects to be "state secrets".

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that blohard doesnt count

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

      There are several facets of the first amendment, and different crowds want one or more facets cancelled at various times for various reasons. It's the beauty of politics.

    12. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

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

      How we gonna get whirled peas than?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Mint chocolate chip is the best.

      And vim is the best text editor.

      I propose we censor any speech which criticizes mint chocolate chip ice cream or which advances non-vi-style editors.

    14. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      it's to use your own free speech to tell everyone why they're wrong.

      That doesn't actually work. Just look at all the extremist stuff that's become popular with the ubiquity of the internet: far right-wing "press" here in the US, and the rise of ISIS in the middle east. Telling people they're wrong just doesn't work; people have confirmation bias, they read something that agrees with their preconceived notions, and pushes them even farther, and they ignore anything that opposes that viewpoint. It's even worse when you mix religion in there, because it's impossible to argue with religious beliefs, since they have no basis in reality whatsoever.

      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?

      This is a fanciful notion that has no actual evidence supporting it. As I said before, you can't argue with religion. ISIS says the "end of days" is coming, that a massive war with the "Romans" is just around the corner, and that Muslims should join them to be part of this "great" event. You can mock them and say their religious beliefs are stupid, but that's not going to change anyone's minds, that's just going to make anyone who was leaning that way go even farther in that direction.

      In a nutshell, free speech and easy communication really isn't having the moderating effect that people like you think it should; instead, it's having directly the opposite effect: it's aiding in the spread of extremist ideologies, and fracturing public opinion. This wasn't the case pre-internet because extremists didn't have an easy and cheap way to spread their thoughts: printing presses and travel are expensive. Now with the internet, any fool can put up a YouTube video for nothing.

    15. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If they cancel one do the others shuffle up, or will there be a gap? It's all very confusing. Perhaps they should just give them names like "the one about beer" or "the one about darkies voting".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Isn't this really inevitable? I think man can not live without conflict. It's not the system that's broken but the people. It seems that wars are inevitable and all we can do is try to survive them because at the end of the day people are just people. You can't live in peace if people wont let you.

    17. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Eristone · · Score: 2

      johanw, your post looked kind of weird.. here let me copy/paste:

      The ## ########## is already using these tactics to %enhance% discussion about people they really don't like, like ####### or #######. Claiming the subjects to be "##### #######"

      Not sure what you were trying to say, but I'm certain it was important...

    18. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The first amendment has many clauses within. A lot of those pro-second people are strictly opposed to the establishment clause - they believe that it is the duty of government to promote Christianity above all other religions, always has been, and they won't let the dirty liberals insult good Americans by trying to force Christ out of government policy.

    19. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are splitting some mighty fine hair to claim that immigration is the same thing as free speech. That is not to deny the existence of xenophobia, but separate that from the very broad definitions given in the First amendment. That is also not to deny that our First amendment rights have not already been trashed (which assembly and press have been).

      --

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

    20. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      If you want to combat Isis you need to give voices to assholes who are muslim. This teaches non-muslims that if a muslim says something you don't like it does not instantly turn him into a terrorist. And it teaches muslims that they're not just represented by peace-loving hippies who certainly don't want to upset anyone and love everyone so much.

    21. 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?
    22. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You are splitting some mighty fine hair to claim that immigration is the same thing as free speech.

      You really don't know what's in the First Amendment, do you? Here, let me give you the entire text:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      See that? The entire 1stAm. Free speech isn't even the first thing mentioned. A lot of people conveniently forget the actual text of the Amendment and just use "free speech" as shorthand for the whole thing, the same way they conveniently forget the full text of the 2ndAm. Now, do you understand how not allowing US citizens who are Muslims from returning to the country from abroad, or having a religious test in order to forbid one religion from entering the country is a violation of the First Amendment?

      Let me know if you're still having trouble. I really want you to understand this.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by operagost · · Score: 2

      The fact is, that you can't really claim your religious freedom is being infringed when you haven't even entered the country, as is argued for foreign nationals. The executive already has the power, in law, to discriminate among refugees based on their religion. It could be extended (by legislation) to all immigrants without infringing on anything in the Constitution.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    24. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Except even Trump clarified that already. He was asked whether he would stop Muslim citizens from returning to the USA and his answer was no. I heard the interview this morning. And you can't really argue that you're infringing on someone's religious rights in the USA when they haven't even entered yet. People have been blocked from entering the USA for things they have said and done before-- things that they would be entitled to do if they were citizens, permanent residents or even foreign nationals.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    25. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And with one out of how many Religions in the world being called out, you don't see this as splitting hairs. Got it! I bow to your wisdom oh Guru of the Split hair and Master of Cherry Pick. (not really bowing, more laughing)

      --

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

    26. 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.
    27. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

      Just search the page for "Whenever" for the money shot.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    28. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fact is, that you can't really claim your religious freedom is being infringed when you haven't even entered the country

      Donald Trump was asked for clarification on an important point: He says US citizens who are Muslims and traveling abroad should also be barred from entering the country.

      Let's go over that tricky First Amendment one more time for good measure:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Now, do you really believe it would be constitutional or right in any shape or form to prohibit US citizens from re-entering the country based only on their religion? If you're unsure, read the text of the 1st Am again.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      He was asked whether he would stop Muslim citizens from returning to the USA and his answer was no.

      Can you point to a citation for that? His campaign put out a statement saying that yes, it would include US citizens who were Muslim.

      Remember, the religious freedom clause is the very first one mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It was the reason European pilgrims came to the US in the first place (and why they were called "pilgrims"), so they were very very careful about spelling out that government religious tests were not acceptable.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      So if your point was that only Right Wingers are against free speech

      Do you realize that there are things in the First Amendment besides "free speech"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      The fact is, that you can't really claim your religious freedom is being infringed when you haven't even entered the country

      Donald Trump was asked for clarification on an important point: He says US citizens who are Muslims and traveling abroad should also be barred from entering the country.

      Oddly enough, it appears that he said the exact opposite of that. "I have Muslim friends, Greta, and they're wonderful people. But there's a tremendous section and cross-section of Muslims living in our country who have tremendous animosity," he told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. "It does not apply to people living in the country, except we have to be vigilant."

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    32. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Oddly enough, it appears that he said the exact opposite of that.

      Would it really surprise you if Donald Trump said two opposite things?

      1. Afghanistan
      At first he said: Entering Afghanistan was "a terrible mistake"

      "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place," he told CNN's "New Day" on Oct. 6. He added: "At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point what's going on? It's going to be a long time."

      180: I've never said it was a mistake

      "Iraq was a disaster," he told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday. "Not Afghanistan, because that's probably where we should have gone in the first place."

      When pressed by CNN's Alisyn Camerota on his change of position, he said: "We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan."

      2. Syrian refugees
      At first, he said: "You have to" accept them

      "I hate the concept of it,"Trump told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on Sept. 9. but on a humanitarian basis, with what's happening, you have to" accept the refugees. "They're living in hell."

      90 degrees: Focus more on our own problems

      A day later, Trump told CNN after a rally on Capitol Hill against President Obama's Iran nuclear deal that the United States should probably focus on its own problems here at home rather than accept so many refugees.

      "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems," he said. "We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart."

      180: I will send them back

      Less than a month later, Trump told supporters at a campaign rally and said on Fox News that accepting the estimated 10,000 refugees President Obama has agreed to take could result in "one of the greatest military coups of all times." He suggested that the refugees would be terrorists who could strike the homeland from within and that he would send the refugees back if he became president.

      "If I win, they're going back," he said.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I'm a (bad) Catholic, and while certainly the Inquisition wasn't particularly *odd* at the time and place it happened, that doesn't mean I'm not embarrassed by it.

      Having a broader contextual understanding of the horrors of various religious persecutions and wars doesn't make them any less embarrassing. Yes, Uncle Bob may be retarded, but watching him drool and hump the couch is still embarrassing.

    34. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      About as strange as how some people think the First Amendment is monolithic. The people who want Second Amendment protections only want the Congress shall not make any law regarding the establishment of religion part curtailed. There may be some spillover to the freedom of speech clause and other elements, but they aren't directly targeting those.

    35. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Would it really surprise you if Donald Trump said two opposite things?

      To be honest, yes. Because he says what is on his mind, and he doesn't often change his mind.
      But this is not Trump saying two opposite things. It was somebody saying Trump said one thing but Trump actually said the opposite.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    36. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      and he doesn't often change his mind.

      Except on immigration, abortion, Planned Parenthood, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian refugees, gun control, taxing the wealthy, Social Security, Hillary Clinton, and even his party affiliation.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      I'd say that Donald Trump changes his mind fairly often, if you take him by his words.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Actually, the part about not allowing foreign citizens who are Muslims into the country is perfectly constitutional. That's not the same thing as saying it's a good idea, of course.

    38. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Just look at all the extremist stuff that's become popular with the ubiquity of the internet: far right-wing "press" here in the US, and the rise of ISIS in the middle east.

      So... you think the government should censor the 'far right-wing "press"' (as if there were such a thing)? If you were actually able to do that, just what do you think conservatives would do when they got back into power? And who could blame them?

    39. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Actually, the part about not allowing foreign citizens who are Muslims into the country is perfectly constitutional.

      That's really debatable. Here's a right-wing conservative telling you why (and I can't believe I'm actually linking to National Review):

      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      And here are a bunch of top legal and constitutional scholars arguing both ways:

      http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/...

      So it's not nearly as cut and dried as you would think.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      If you read the NRO article carefully you'll see Geraghty is basing his opinion not on the constitution, but what he thinks the founding fathers would have thought of the plan. You'd be laughed out of law school for making an argument that weak.

      This is far more cut and dried than people are trying to make it. We have SCOTUS plenary power case law that leaves these kinds of tests entirely in the hands of Congress. That is right in the text. It's always possible the current court could make up a new set of rules, I suppose, but that's more legislating from the bench than any sort of constitutional interpretation.

    41. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying anything should be censored; that's obviously a double-edged sword. I'm pointing out that the democratization of communication that the internet has brought us has had some very negative side effects. I don't think it's possible to put that genie back into the bottle.

    42. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you read the NRO article carefully you'll see Geraghty is basing his opinion not on the constitution, but what he thinks the founding fathers would have thought of the plan. You'd be laughed out of law school for making an argument that weak.

      In fact, law schools have a word to describe such an argument. It's called "originalist", and it very much involves what "the founding fathers would have thought of the plan".

      Now, you want to address the arguments in the second link, where actual top constitutional and legal scholars debate the constitutionality of Trump's plan?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    43. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      In fact, law schools have a word to describe such an argument. It's called "originalist", and it very much involves what "the founding fathers would have thought of the plan".

      No, that's not what an originalist is. The originalist argument says the text should be interpreted as understood by the people who ratified it. What Jefferson and Monroe thought is far less important than the actual words on the paper as they would have been understood by an educated person in 1787. The people who voted on it were ratifying a document, not a Weltanschaung, and it's the ratification that lends it legitimacy.

      Now, you want to address the arguments in the second link, where actual top constitutional and legal scholars debate the constitutionality of Trump's plan?

      I guess I would if they existed. On the one hand you have two guys expressing opinions (the first of which has no substance whatsoever - they just quote him as saying he thinks it's unconstitutional). Tribe's argument doesn't reference any kind of case law either. Then the last half of the article they actually explain the case law. That's my point - regardless of what anybody thinks the emanations of penumbras say, this is settled law.

    44. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You know, until I read this thread, I was unaware of this. I honestly was. I had no idea that the president, by themselves, held that power. That's an awesome power to hold. I consider myself almost, not quite, scholarly interested in civics and matters of law and I did not know that. That's a baton to wield with great care and I was unaware that they had such power - I'd have thought it to be an enumerated war power and was under the impression that it was.

      Fascinating to think about... I imagine, with the increased means of communication, that such isn't nearly as powerful as it once was but imagine that back in the days when it took weeks or months to get here. In today's world, the president could literally say, "No, brown people may not come across the border." The implications... "No, not one single Mexican can come across the border, not even legally, unless they're white and can prove it to five generations."

      I mean, sure, s/he's gonna not get elected again and Congress is *going* to find a reason to impeach them. Well, they damned sure better invent a reason to impeach him but I'm not sure how that would work - it's lawful. There's no checks and balances with that, eh? I knew they had the power but I always thought it was an enumerated emergency or war power. In times of war... Then again, we're at war from everything from drugs to illiteracy although I suppose those don't really count as declared wars.

      Damn... I mean, seriously, think of what that kind of statement could result in. Imagine if Bush had said, "Alright, no more French people can come to the US." For such an open-to-abuse thing, I'm surprised I've only known of it as an emergency or war power and that it's never been (as far as I know) abused. That stick is so large that I'm not even sure if it can be used with finesse.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    45. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It seems there's a few targeting the 2nd. Oddly, people seem to be convinced it's one side or the other that's targeting the first. I'd submit that it is both and for varied reasons but the end result is surely the same.

      I do sometimes wonder if it would be worth trying to find somewhere else to live. The only problem with that is that I'm not a coward and I am, truly, a patriot. It mightn't seem like that, to some, but I can assure them that I am, indeed, a patriot. Just because I want free speech and the right to own firearms to be maintained (or even strengthened) does not mean I hate my country, it means I love my country.

      I dare say, I can't think of any amendment that I'd want revoked in their entirety. I'd probably tweak a few if I had a good idea what the outcome would be and it were favorable, long-term, but I can't think of any that I'd revoke. Oh, sure, I'd get rid of some laws and want to overturn some rulings, were I elected Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy or something, but I don't think that makes me less a patriot than others. Were I elected as such then I'd probably only act for a single year and then return things to their slightly amended/repaired state.

      And, by now, you're surely aware that specifics are available but I'll save the bytes as I understand it's hunting season right now so I should save some for the rest of the world. I'd make sure the first month of my Supreme Galaxy Ruling Duties were filled with getting the entire population, adult of course, completely wrecked on their substance of choice and making them all turn off their televisions and go outside and interact with each other - face-to-face, and then help each other deal with the massive hangovers afterwards. Yes, we'll be dysfunctional but it just might work. It might take more than a month of intoxication. Those that don't get intoxicated will be tasked with cleaning up after the rest of us.

      Hmm... I have a plan! To the voting booth! Sadly, the post is both vacant and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Whilst I shall, perhaps, be elected in 2016 - I'm pretty sure a mere State Senator from Maine will not be allowed to wield such power. As near as I can tell, the only perks that come with that job are the right to not be interfered with while traveling to an open-session. That means means, basically, I could be purposely late and drive as fast as I want and, if the Senate is in session, the police may not stop me. I believe policy is that they give me an escort and write tickets and/or arrest after the session is officially closed.

      I have a plan! To the voting booth! Well now, that's kind of off-topic. ;-) Moderators, to the voting booth!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    46. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How come this only applies to US citizens? The Constitution seems to be based on the idea that all people are equal, and as such it seems odd to limit it to just US citizens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You've probably gone through the thread and missed it. Check sycodon's post:
      http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

      It's something to throw into the mix. I knew the president had that power, sort of, but I thought it was an enumerated war power or emergency power. They link to an actual authoritative source which, of course, doesn't make them right but does lend some weight to it. It is from Cornell and probably a bit more authoritative than a couple of pundits in an op-ed piece with the various biases such might include.

      I do not, as of yet, know enough about this to hold an opinion but their quote and link indicate that this might be constitutional. That does not, of course, mean it is good policy, sane, or even going to help anything. Nor does it mean that I agree that we should elect Trump but that's probably a given.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    48. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The 18th was repealed and the number remains empty, I assume this will be true if any of the others are repealed. The 21st is not the 20th, after all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    49. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      History is littered with the bones of the people who came from peaceful civilizations. Not one, not one single one, lasted for very long when they came into contact with other people. Given that contact is so trivial to make, we can extrapolate from there. Keep in mind, I'm a Buddhist. I'm telling you right now, peaceful doesn't work long-term. (I'm sure you agree, I'm just expanding and not arguing.)

      We're a pragmatic lot, we Buddhists, and I don't think people are going to just suddenly listen to reason and change their behavior. They haven't changed yet. I'm not entirely sure why people say that it could happen when all evidence points to the contrary. Every peaceful civilization has been conquered. This has not changed nor is it going to so long as people are people.

      On an individual level, some of us can be acceptable. That's all well and good until someone else decides they don't want to be an acceptable human being. From a purely objective view, I'd suggest that we might have evolved to have these characteristics for a reason. It's good for genetic swapping, culling the herd, innovation, and finding the most fit specimens. I'm sure we can think of other things that it is good for.

      No, I don't have the solution. I don't even pretend to have the solution. I do have a way to cope. "Put on your man-panties and suck it up. Shit happens. We can do what we can to minimize it but conflict is inevitable. It's surely as much a law as is entropy." And, again, this is just taking your idea and running with it and not an attempt to argue. Sadly, with some, this needs clarification. Some folks seem to think that communication isn't possible without arguing. You see that here often. I dare say that it ties in nicely with the topic of this very post.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    50. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Crusades against the Balts, the Czech and the Russians were pretty much Christian (Catholic to be precise because both Czech and Russians were Christian by that point) rampages out of the blue.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    51. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by gsslay · · Score: 3, Informative

      When you say someone has "changed their mind" you are suggesting some sort of thought has gone on to form the basis of an opinion, and then something has happened to alter the situation, and after further thought, their opinion has changed.

      Trump just opens his mouth and lets loose with what half baked notion he's just thought of, that he thinks people want to hear. And then the next day he does the same. There is no guarantee of, or even effort towards, consistency.

      His only constant is how brilliant and rich you need to know he is.

    52. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      ^ delusional

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    53. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      ^delusional

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    54. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by davecb · · Score: 1

      Mr Schmidt is a way better business manager than he is a philosopher (;-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    55. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Sure, but free speech is clearly paramount.

      You could also say that the right to religious freedom is really the right to free thought, which for most people precedes free speech. Except apparently for Donald Trump, for whom thought rarely precedes speech.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    56. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      The liberals!

    57. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Mr. Trump has historically been anti-2A. In terms of real people - not politicians - I have never, ever, ever, ever found a pro-2a person to be anti 1a. I leave that for the liberals, who are anti 1a and anti 2a.

    58. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This is where Alan Sugar is a far more appropriate business leader for the TV show The Apprentice (the US version of which Trump is on).

      Sugar does actually talk sound business sense, does have a clear reading of people, isn't afraid to receive advice and can justify his decisions. Sometimes he gets them wrong, but he also takes accountability for that.

      I'm not a massive fan, but he's easy to respect.

    59. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This would seem to provide for establishment of religion and prohibiting its free exercise. Is the First, like the Fourth, suspended at the border?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Damn, there goes my hope for getting Christ into government policy. It would be a considerable improvement over what we've got now.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      That is one thing the ultra-left and the ultra-right have in common. They want to censor everything.

      Maybe it is simply something that people with vast power need in order to keep their power. The ability to deny speech that does not agree with them.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    62. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      First, college students aren't necessarily Democrats, and a survey of college students without asking for party affiliation won't tell you much about the Democrats. Second, while college students may be for restricting free speech, they're not the only ones, and I don't know what the numbers are. Third, you're assuming they're anti-Second Amendment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    63. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Peaceful civilizations can become frighteningly good at war when threatened, and since they're peaceful they often have more developed economies. Moreover, since they are peaceful, they view war as a temporary aberration, and can throw themselves into a war without trying to make what they're doing tolerable in the long run. Pacifist civilizations may not last, but I'm not aware of enough to draw conclusions from. Peaceful can work long-term.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Quite true. I was more thinking of a strict definition for peaceful which, to my mind, would mean *mostly* pacifistic in nature. The main idea being that peace just isn't going to happen as long as there are humans in the mix. As I look back at history, something that I've an almost scholarly interest in, I really have to conclude that, for the most part, peace is what's occasionally interrupts chaos. That's taking the larger picture into account and, of course, there are isolated exceptions to the rule.

      We seem to do okay at the tribal level. A small community could work with any one of a number of the pure political and economic platforms. Communism, Randian Capitalism, Democracy, even a Totalitarian Dictatorship can all be successful at some level and for some level of population. In their pure forms? Well, they don't always scale out very well. At least that's my observation.

      With this, of course, comes violence. Those small communities seem to end up having conflicts when they interact with others. They say that humans are social animals and that's certainly true but I don't think, and this is speculation, that we've quite evolved to do so on a large scale with diverse groups.

      Ah well... *shrugs* I dunno.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    65. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by sd4f · · Score: 1

      I wonder what your opinion of Kim Davis is/was? Considering that so many talking heads were more than happy to throw her religious freedom under a bus, all in the name of progress, now those same people are champions of religious freedom for the muslims. The obvious cognitive dissonance bothers me somewhat...

    66. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I wonder what your opinion of Kim Davis is/was?

      Kim Davis is free to believe whatever she wants to believe. If she doesn't want to get gay married, she doesn't have to. If she's a public servant who doesn't want to do her job and uphold the law because her religious convictions won't allow it, she needs to get another job or face the consequences.

      But she stays an American either way. Now where is the cognitive dissonance?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    67. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think the premise is, and I may be wrong, it's that the Republicans in question had been telling other people that it was wrong to be hedonistic socialist godless UnAmerican things.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    68. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sunnis have been at war with Shia for 1000 years.

      Please learn more history.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    69. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The last person executed by the inquisition was in 1850 or so.

      Which isn't to minimize the Muslim wars of conquest, but giving the fisheaters a pass is bullshit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    70. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by sd4f · · Score: 1

      Well, it's really straight forward, because in the Kim Davis instance, you're basically siding with what I presume is Trump's attitude to banning muslim's entry. You're basically saying, yes, Kim Davis can practice her religion, just not in the US public service as she's required to obey the law. Similarly, Trump hasn't banned the practice of Islam, because those people denied entry aren't in the USA, and their rights aren't being prevented on US soil, and likewise, they would be required to obey the law by not returning, just like Kim Davis is not to exercise her freedom of religion, whilst at work.

      So when you swap the boundaries of the US public service, with the boundaries of the USA, you are essentially lumped with very similar sets of circumstances, as she can't go to work (nevermind the jail part) just like Trump is suggesting muslims can't enter the country, yet, you arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.

    71. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So when you swap the boundaries of the US public service, with the boundaries of the USA

      And why would you do that? The question is about due process. Kim Davis got due process. If people are not allowed to enter the country based only on their religion, then by definition they are denied due process.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    72. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The right tends to want to censor anti-gov't speech. The left tends to want to censor any speech they disagree with, or that makes them uncomfortable.

      Neither is a good thing, but the latter is far more useful for creating little peoplebots that march in lockstep... and therefore are easier for the gov't to control. (Recommended viewing: any of the talks by Yuri Bezmenov. Most enlightening about the modern left.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    73. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The right tends to want to censor anti-gov't speech.

      I do not agree with that at all. Look at the Tea Party and other ultra-right stuff.

      Granted they are idiots and the people holding their leash know exactly what they are doing. When right leaning politicans are in power, its all "rah rah murika trust your govmit!" When left leaning politicians are in power its all "keep the government out of my medicare!"

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    74. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Tea Party, as it was originally conceived, was basically libertarian. Not right-wing, for whatever that means anymore.

      At this point I'd like to march 'em all into the sea, but I've seen far more damage done by the leftists. So I'd like them to march off first, please...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  3. Clippy for Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see you are trying to write a plot to bomb a famous landmark! Allow me to help you with that.

  4. Uh Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  5. The crab has three watches... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Any censorship has to be effective against every person, ever. But people are pretty clever

  6. I for one welcome by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    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*
    1. Re:I for one welcome by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      The Trump hysteria is even better. People are going to start jumping out of buildings at some point.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:I for one welcome by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This Muslim hysteria is turning out to be the best serous action and comedy on in one popcorn flick ever.

      Yellow bodily fluids? Eeeew!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:I for one welcome by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Haifa and Khalid Blow Up White Castle - two lifelong friends self-radicalize and quest to suicide bomb a white castle but are thwarted by the New Jersey turnpike system.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  7. Brilliant Idea by paulhar · · Score: 1

    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]"

  8. Kind of redundant by Creepy · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. This is double plus ungood by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    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! --
  10. Videos and chat don't motivate many.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    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!”
  11. Good luck with that by bmo · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:Good luck with that by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the Chinese can't censor anything outside the great firew***CARRIER LOST***

  12. They would use metaphors by peter303 · · Score: 1

    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.

  13. Re:Typical Liberal Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    Mod this up as funny! Quick before the hate filter grabs it and this valuable insight goes away!

    Turd!

  14. Eric Schmidt is a fat cat honky white trash by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    and a cracker too. He is The Man, and the Man is keeping us down

  15. False positive. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:False positive. by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

      If human beings can differentiate between the two, computers will be able to do the same eventually.

    2. Re:False positive. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Eventually is a very long time. Computers will be able to figure out everything "eventually". What we are talking about is what is possible now.

    3. Re:False positive. by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure a simple Bayes filter like those used to detect spam would work very well. While discussion about hate speech and hate speech have some keywords in common, there are some words that are much more common in discussion, like the phrase "hate speech" itself.
      Like spam filters, external data could be used such as from where the message is sent, user feedback, etc...
      Human moderators can then deal with the edge cases.

      The problem is : we human don't even agree on what hate speech is.

  16. Catholic Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Catholic Church by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      What the catholic church did to Galileo was, if you keep your head down we leave you alone and you can think what you want. And he didn't want to keep his head down so they had to assert their authority. Mob rules.

  17. So Basically Schmidt agrees with Trump by CajunArson · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:So Basically Schmidt agrees with Trump by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      With Schmidt you know he's all for surveillance and will remain so. Trump can change his mind anytime.

  18. We have always been at war with oceana by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    PC double speak enforced by the minders' electronic eye.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  19. Google just wants to target terrorists with ads by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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.

  20. start with yourself by reemul · · Score: 2

    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*
  21. Auto translate by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    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.
  22. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah? Well there's a third entire crowd who hates the crowd who hates the second amendment less than they hate the first amendment! And a fourth who hates that third crowd with a passion.

  23. Re: This is censorship a freedom for us by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    You can't recruit a corpse.

    On the other hand, if you are going to wage war then at least try to be good at it. Try to accomplish your objectives. Otherwise, you are just spreading death and destruction for no reason at all.

    Motive and intent does make a difference.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  24. Slippery slope... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. Letâ(TM)s give up on academic freedom by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    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.

    In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that "Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results." In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

    Yet the liberal obsession with "academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has "full freedom" in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever "free" from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

    Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of "academic justice." When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

    -- The Harvard Crimson, February 18, 2014

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Letâ(TM)s give up on academic freedom by tsotha · · Score: 1

      There's no question the universities have become cesspits of totalitarianism. I didn't expect to see that in my lifetime.

  26. The ministery of truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I nominate google for the ministry of truth.

    1. Re:The ministery of truth by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 5, Funny

      It can't possibly work. If I'm not allowed to call someone a 'bastard', I'll write, "You, sir, are the result of an illicit conjugation," a game of wack-a-mole if ever there was one.

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    2. Re:The ministery of truth by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

      It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.

    3. Re:The ministery of truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't count on it, bumblecunt

    4. Re:The ministery of truth by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      "You, sir, are the result of an illicit conjugation"

      It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.

      Especially if we include bad puns and grammar humor: "You, sir, be being the result of an illicit conjugation."

      Hmm... actually come to think of it, we already have such a spell-checker. I eventually had to turn of iPhone's Autocorrect when it would refuse to allow me to use the word "its". It would always just change it to "it's". Yes, Apple, English does actually have a third-person possessive pronoun, so stop making me to look like an illiterate idiot when I forget to correct your "autocorrect." Perhaps they've fixed this now, but it was only one of a number of perfectly valid words that Autocorrect wouldn't let me use.

    5. Re:The ministery of truth by turning+in+circles · · Score: 1

      You underestimate AI, sir.

      --
      Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
    6. Re:The ministery of truth by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it will encourage more creative use of language! So much nicer to type 'consume faeces and expire' than using the vernacular :)

    7. Re:The ministery of truth by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And easily defeated by any sort of substitution code, say, the easily-recognisable ROT13.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  27. Eric Schmidt is a tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Eric Schmidt is a tool by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      "The US could have just bombed them for a few weeks"

      Or they could have properly investigated 9/11 and learned the identities of the real terrorists - instead of blaming it on a bunch of Muslim suicide bombers (many of which were found alive and well after 9/11) - and starting a racial war of terrorism against middle eastern people.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  28. Re:really? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    Don't forget the Popular Front of Judea, nobody likes him.

  29. This Perfect Day by Kennon · · Score: 1

    Fight Uni!

    --
    "All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
  30. 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

  31. Will it censor Christian terrorists too? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Will it censor Christian terrorists too? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Well, since the US administration has been working to destroy Christians in the middle east, and has been targeting them at home too, it won't matter very soon.

    2. Re:Will it censor Christian terrorists too? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The US government has not been targeting Christians at home.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. He never mentioned censorship, just tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. One possible limitation by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

    Will all extremists will be required to have a Google+ account?

  34. I'd rather a spell checker for facebook memes by tekrat · · Score: 1

    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.
  35. an alternative proposal by nightcats · · Score: 1

    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)
  36. Denying Free Speech Checker by Macdude · · Score: 2

    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
  37. 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.

    1. Re:He preaches hate speech and terror by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. I wish I had mod points right now.

  38. Eric Schmidt is an idiot by kheldan · · Score: 2

    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!
    1. Re:Eric Schmidt is an idiot by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2

      Actually, it was adults who invented leet, and it was back when everyone was still using BBS's. By the way, you are on my lawn.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  39. YouTube by kheldan · · Score: 1

    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!
  40. good idea by joe1996 · · Score: 1

    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
  41. I [CENSORED] [CENSORED] This! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:I [CENSORED] [CENSORED] This! by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      We should then all use the word "censored" as a curse word. Let's make it something worse than f*ck. Then see how it plays out...

  42. EVIL by samantha · · Score: 1

    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?

  43. Turing creative work into junk by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    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"
  44. Took Subject the wrong way by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    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.
  45. 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
    1. Re:Trump by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So what Schmidt is saying is that he wants to "close up the internet in some way"

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  46. Subversion by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

    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.
  47. Re:1984 by matbury · · Score: 1

    I thought Nineteen Eighty-four was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

  48. No surprise by tsotha · · Score: 1

    This just confirms what I've suspected for a long time: Schmidt is a fascist, and that's not hyperbole.

  49. Hypocrisy much? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

    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."
    1. Re:Hypocrisy much? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Thanks, and sorry for the confusion.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  50. Anti-Dalek? by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    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...

    1. Re:Anti-Dalek? by davecb · · Score: 1

      Anti-babelfish, methinks!

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  51. And thus removing freedom to think by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    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.
  52. Umm by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

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

    Given how few and who owns the media, what is allowed to be said to you is already rather controlled.

  53. Sidebar re fairness by davecb · · Score: 1
    The "Fairness Doctrine" was a mechanistic and ill-drafted attempt to do what newspapers did and still do:
    1. - cover both sides of a story
    2. - separate their own opinion out and label it "editorial"
    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  54. Let's grow this system organically by easyTree · · Score: 1

    I'll start

    If (str.indexOf ("overeach") != -1) {
        classification = enemyType.domesticTerrorist;
        dispatchBlackHelicopters ();
    }

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  55. Re:Good! by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the left wingers, almost all millennials, and almost everyone under the age of 55 also need them.

  56. Hate spell checker? by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    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."

  57. Hope it works better than spell check by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    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.

  58. The slippery slope of Internet censorship. by anti-disney · · Score: 1

    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.