Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Others Agree To Remove Hate Speech Across the EU

Posted by msmash on from the hate-speech-code dept.

Tech giants in conjunction with European Union are taking a stand to fight hate speech. Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook have launched "code of conduct" aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe. The companies aren't legally obligated, but have agreed to "public commitments" to review the "majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" in less than 24 hours, and make it easier for law enforcement in Europe to notify the firms directly. From a TechCrunch report: Tech companies will have to find the right balance between freedom of expression and hateful content. Based on the code of conduct, they'll have dedicated teams reviewing flagged items (poor employees who will have to review awful things every day). Tech companies will also educate their users and tell them that it's forbidden to post hateful content. They'll cooperate with each other to share best practice. They'll encourage flagging of hateful content and they'll promote counter speech against hateful rhetoric. It's good to see that this issue got escalated and the European Commission was able to come up with a code of conduct quite quickly. Instead of making tech companies deal with every single European country, they can agree on rules for the EU as a whole."The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech," Vera Jourova, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, wrote in the European Commission press release. "Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."

33 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. What could go wrong? by transami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No slippery slope here, no sir.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  2. Well thats by maroberts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doubleplusgood

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  3. Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.

    So, European values don't actually include free expression. Will bouncing back and forth between these too opposing goals cause so much friction that the interwebs actually catch on fire?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      More importantly the EU will have more tools to effectively squelch honest reporting about the current ISIS invasion.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a different between some racist twonk saying "ALL {X} MUST DIE!" (or other racist b.s.) and saying "Your message has no place here, and we're not going to allow it."

      It's more like this:

      Government: "Terrorist are a problem! We must ban hate speech."

      Pleb: "Yes, and maybe you shouldn't have let in all those people associated with terrorism, violence, and intolerance."

      Government: "Xenophobia! This hate speech must be banned!"

    3. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · · Score: 2

      They're right-wing sources with evidence to back them up. But since the left has no interest on reporting incidents like this, you feel free to dismiss them out of hand.

      And still loving how you want me to die in a fire when you claim only violent posts will be censored. What a hypocrite and an asshole to boot.

  4. Emacs by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank goodness. Now I am free to express my view that Emacs is the best editor and no one can attack me!

  5. who decides what is "hate speech"??? by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    exactly. who gets to decide what hate speech is real and what is imagined? will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???

    this is going to go very very badly

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      Will saying "I hate Monday" equal hate speech and if it does then that's a lot of posts to delete.

    2. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hasn't it already gone very badly in some countries? When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly. When it's illegal to discuss (one side of) a political issue, such as immigration, even by lawmakers it has gone very badly indeed.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by geek · · Score: 4, Informative

      will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???

      Yes

    4. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by PPH · · Score: 2

      The details will be outlined in your next edition of Newspeak.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's simple. Harassment and hate speech is anything that disagrees with me or that I find uncomfortable or offensive.

      You're welcome.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    6. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no, no. That's the prelude to badly. When you stop people from discussing and protesting things they disagree with, it's what comes next that's the reall things going badly.

    7. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by INT_QRK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Hate Speech" - Noun, (1) Any speech about which the Left disapproves or consider contradictory to Leftist goals or objectives. (2) A political term to justify censorship or persecution on enemies. See Stalin, Joseph.

    8. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Butters: Do I have to, sir?

      PC Principal: All I'm asking you to do is go through their social media and delete the two or three comments that are mean.

      Butters: PC Principal, ah I don't think you quite realize how much negative stuff I have to sift through.

    9. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2

      You're not a lawyer, as you said, so obviously you're missing the reason why the above is pretty fucked up.

      First of all there's no clear definition of what constitutes a 'threat' against those groups, and it is established international law that 'refugees' have the right of asylum. So let's say you don't like economic (or even civil war) refugees coming to your country in the hundreds of thousands due to their way of life. (patriarchal, non-democratic, etc, views/actions) Send them back / keep them out.

      Make a facebook post about the subject and suddenly you have made a 'threat' against a race/origin/religion/... and their 'freedoms' and 'rights'. We do after all have some signed papers regarding the rights of refugees.

      And the law is so broad it will put random people in front of judges until they can show how retarded the law is, and that is going to take years to sort out which means during the next couple of decades you'd better be using an anonymous account and TOR if you want to say something the 'people' don't like you saying.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    10. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by rastos1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oxford Dictionary:
      threat: noun; a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

      So if I post "I don't want them to come to my country because they will overload and ruin our social system" it's not a threat. If I post "we should beat the crap out of Syrians coming to establish Sharia law in my country", yes that is a threat.

      The law that I quoted, is not something that is new. It exists for decades and there are at about 2-3 cases per year,where it is applied in a court (and it makes headlines). I.e. I don't see it creating the mess you forecast. That can change as the refugee crisis mounts up again, but that is yet to be seen.

    11. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Atrox666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SJWs of course. All those people can get off welfare and use those gender studies degrees.

      Only really serious hate speech, like disagreeing with anything a woman or person of colour says.

      It'll be fine, and if you disagree you will be required to get a 2 inch tall tattoo on your forehead that says "Shitlord".

    12. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      I know some will label this post as "hate speech", but from my perspective most Europeans are pansies and even saying 'hello' to some of them is hate speech.

      In this country we have a whole generation of pansies whose feelings get hurt over nearly anything. Just think, Europe is ahead of the US by 10 to 15 years so we'll have it as bad here as they do there in a little while.

      Damn, I'm glad I'm old and won't live to see the end of civilization!

    13. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hate speech, like it or not, is part of having a free society. RIP, Europe.

      Hate speech is free speech you don't like.

    14. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      People love to fall back on the "It's a private service" argument, but that's nonsense. These companies aren't agreeing to spend their money on policing speech because they're caring corporations who want to help people. They're doing it because governments are pressuring them to do it. Governments are using corporations to get around the rules and do things governments aren't supposed to be able to do.

      We call that fascism.

    15. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by cavreader · · Score: 2

      If you are a lawyer you should understand that there is no true international law, established or otherwise, because there is no enforcement mechanism that can be brought to bear equally in every corner of the world. Even countries with advanced rule of law have all kinds of problems defining jurisdiction, extradition rights, and problems leading towards sovereignty issues. Only a few countries have the ability to enforce there definition of international law and that relies on political pressure backed up by economic and ultimately military power when things truly escalate. The EU seems well on it's way towards a thought police state while simultaneously bending over backwards to accommodate people holding beliefs that would have seemed extreme even back in the 12th century. The only permitted hate speech in the EU is anything denigrating and insulting to the US and everyone living there. While the EU chattering classes were hyperventilating over the NSA they failed to notice whose national security and intelligence services were actually collecting their data and then sharing it with the NSA. Do they think all that data was deleted from the servers located in Europe after the hand over?

    16. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, no. That's the prelude to badly. When you stop people from discussing and protesting things they disagree with, it's what comes next that's the reall things going badly.

      Would you say you... "hate" that scenario, citizen?

    17. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Whoever publicly [...]
      b) defames such group or individual
      [...] will be punished by imprisonment from 1 up to 3 years

      Now throw in interpretation of defamation, where drawing attention to the race or religion of the Rotherham rapists could be construed as defamation and suddenly you can't say a fucking thing about anybody.

      Shit, a year in jail for describing the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys? That's what that law dictates. That's fucking horrific.

  6. Why do they remind you of that? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech

    What? What speech was said that triggered the attacks? The attacks would have been done regardless of what anyone said.

    Even if you buy into the nonsense the west is responsible for the attacks that is still because of something the west DID, not because of what they SAID.

    In the end the "illegal online hate speech" will be anything that displeases the ruling class. History has shown us again and again how well it turns out when all news is just censored propaganda.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      If I want to publish a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammad having gay sex with Carl Sagan that's my prerogative and my right. Don't like it? Don't look at it.

      Not that I would because

      A.) I can't draw
      B.) I'm generally not an asshole until provoked

      This is a serious slippery slope. Even saying "The God of Abraham does not exist and is simply a bronze-age Jewish mythology" can be labeled as hate speech. Even if that is a core part of my [non]religious beliefs.

      I'm not going to tapdance around people's feelings under threat of prison and censor myself. Seriously. Prison? For hurting someone's wee little feelings? A term as long as you would serve for physically beating the shit out of someone? SJW's are going way too far in the EU and we need to stop them from getting a foothold here. If someone is deeply offended by the fact that I criticize/mock their religion, oppose them influencing politics... FUCK'EM.... they NEED to be offended. If mocking superstition, the violence it brings and the chilling effect it has on reasonable discourse is hateful, then I'm proud to be a bigot.

      At least here in the US if someone tries to kill me over my beliefs, opinions or speech I can legally blow their brains out in self defense. You guys in the EU are screwed and we're not far behind you unfortunately.

      Hating people isn't illegal. Making people mad isn't illegal. Losing control and beating/killing someone because you can't control your rage *IS* illegal. You have no inherent right to not be offended in a free society. Period.

    2. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that I agree with the existance of 'hate speech' laws, I don't.

      I'm just saying that its difficult (for me) to see how 'hate speech laws' could reasonably be formulated such that Charlie Hebdo doesn't fall foul of them.

      The law should be able to be applied impartially without looking like an ass(hole).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  7. 1984 was too soon... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    George Orwell was right, he was just a man before his time... He should have titled his book 2016...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:1984 was too soon... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      The word we are all converging on is "tolerance"

      I think tolerance is the word that is used by the side trying to get the upper hand. I heard a lot of calling for tolerance when gay marriage was still in the trying to get legal phase. Now that the LGBTxxx side seems to have the upper hand it's about forcing bakers into making cakes and people losing their jobs over not supporting gay marriage. Tolerance went out the window as soon as they had the upper hand. I'm against any group calling for penalties based on a person's views or voting habits. If one wants to call me tolerant, so be it. However I can have serious disagreements with coworkers over a particular view without being able to work with them and it would never cross my mind to try and get a person fired over a personal view. You don't have to agree with someone to treat them with civility. Moreover talking with others who I don't agree with sometimes, not usually admittedly but sometimes, allows me to pick up a new perspective.

  8. You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's all remember that this doesn't really REMOVE hate speech. It hides it, allowing us all to feel wonderful about ourselves and that we've "done something" about hate speech.

    We haven't *actually* DONE anything.

    Like Juncker's fantastically anti-democratic reaction to the threat of the Ã-FP victory in Austria (I won't allow any far-right reactionaries any power in the EU!), Europe seems to fundamentally "not get" how democracy works. When confronted with something unpleasant, they try to ban it.

    The only cure for unpleasant speech is more speech. Anything else ultimately makes it worse.

    --
    -Styopa
  9. Typo by countach44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Others Agree To Remove Free Speech Across the EU

    FTFY

    Babies and bathwater, slippery slopes, boiling frogs, etc...

  10. Re:of course by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    you have no right of appeal

    Not to worry. I'm used to it.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.