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

An anonymous reader writes: In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt has proposed the creation of 'tools' to stop or limit the spread of messages and content intended to recruit terrorists. Schmidt says: "We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice."

Schmidt does not enlarge on whether he is talking about AI-driven systems capable of understanding thought well enough to make value judgments on it, or of the problems involved in auto-censoring speech in order to promote his vision of a new rapport between cultures on the internet.

Comments

Go fuck yourself

[OverlordQ]

Kindly go fuck yourself.

Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[bfwebster]

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.

Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[hsthompson69]

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.

Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[sycodon]

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.

Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud....

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Another thought...

[bmo]

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

Re:The ministery of truth

[Earthquake Retrofit]

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.

Re:The ministery of truth

[SuricouRaven]

It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.

He preaches hate speech and terror

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Trump

[penguinoid]

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.