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.

9 of 305 comments (clear)

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

    Kindly go fuck yourself.

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

    Seriously? Seriously? He really doesn't recognize the full implications of what he's proposing? Time to drag out my favorite passage from Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons":

    Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

    --
    Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
    1. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We wouldn't even be discussing this if speech like TRUMP's gets a total fucking pass like it's been getting in the US media, outside of special interest shows like Maddow.

    Critical journalism in the US is largely fucking dead in the mainstream. Everyone is afraid they're going to lose their precious 'access' if they ask the tough questions and call people like TRUMP out on their bullshit.

    Things like "The Interview" over at the BBC do not exist at all over here.

    It's despicable. You're not journalists anymore. You're PR agents and 'entertainment.' Fuck off.

    --
    BMO

  4. 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
  5. Re:The ministery of truth by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

    It'll certainly bring the class back into insults.

  6. 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.