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.

41 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 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.
    2. Re:Go fuck yourself by tinkerton · · Score: 2

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

  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 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.
    9. 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...

    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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.
  3. 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*
  4. 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!”
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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*
  8. 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!
  9. Re:really? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

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

  10. 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

  11. 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
  12. Re:The ministery of truth by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

    It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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!

  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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."