Slashdot Mirror
Top Tech Firms Urged To Step Up Online Abuse Fightback (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report on The Guardian: Top tech companies are talking to grassroots organisations across the globe to organise a fightback on their platforms against online abuse, hate speech, misogyny and stalking. Facebook, Twitter and Google are reaching out to women's groups, NGOs and communities in Africa, America, India, Europe and the Middle East as the scale of abuse online continues to increase. But their attempts to foster a "counter-speech" movement to challenge the violent misogyny, racism, threats, intimidation and abuse that flood social media platforms have prompted some of the communities they are trying to empower to question whether they are ducking their own responsibilities. Sarah Green, of the End Violence against Women coalition, said: "Any moves by social media companies to support, encourage and empower individuals and groups to resist and counter abuse is very welcome."
. . . . how does that effect the "Common Carrier"-type protections of the admittedly-hated Communications Decency Act ? As I recall, acting as a de-facto common carrier prevented liability for content.
So, if providers start discriminating on content, do they not also lose the immunity from liability ?
I'm not really sure where the line is on this, so ask the question here on Slashdot. . .
Wrongthink is doublepus ungood, must be banned.
[Insert pithy quote here]
So far i'm not convinced that anti-abuse laws have not done more harm than good. How many people have had their homes and marriages busted up by false accusations or a very temporary situation? One example was just on a crime show. A good looking young woman drank too much and refused to leave a casino with her boyfriend. When he tried to take her back to the hotel in his words 'She dug her spiked heals into the carpet and would not leave. Casino security stepped in and escorted him out the door. They liked a sharp looking blond who was on the wild side and drunk as she interested the male customers quite a bit. Her boyfriend returned to the hotel. She walked out of the casino and was seen walking with another male as she left. She was killed, dumped in a dumpster and the dumpster was set on fire. Not much was left and only dental records proved her identity. Now which was more abusive. For him to drag his drunken, live-in girlfriend out of the casino could be seen as a violation of womens' rights. However, allowing someone who is drinking freedom to do as they please is also abuse by negligence. This is a case of laws that are trying to do some good turning into a deadly consequence for a woman.
If you really think misogyny and misandry are in any way on equal footing you haven't been out much.
Well I can't go sit at the park, or go to the zoo by myself, without getting the glaring evil eye from women who think I'm there to kidnap their kids. When I tried to attend my nephew's birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, they wouldn't let me in the building until I called my sister in law and she came outside to escort me in. Meanwhile women were walking in, un-challenged, their policy is men by themselves cannot enter.
But there's no misandry going on, keep telling yourself that.
Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt
Nonsense.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
Also nonsense. ...
Really? Nonsense?!?!?!
Care to explain why Twitter has allowed her - a black woman - to keep her account after she called for the gang rape of woman?
Care to explain why Whoopi Goldberg - a black woman - still has a job on TV after saying what Roman Polanski did to a 13--year-old white girl "wasn't 'rape rape'"?
The only nonsense is what you posted.