Slashdot Mirror
Google and Facebook May Be Suppressing 'Extremist' Speech With Copyright Scanners (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes this article from The Verge:
The systems that automatically enforce copyright laws on the internet may be expanding to block unfavorable speech. Reuters reports that Facebook, Google, and other companies are exploring automated removal of extremist content, and could be repurposing copyright takedown methods to identify and suppress it. It's unclear where the lines have been drawn, but the systems are likely targeted at radical messages on social networks from enemies of European powers and the United States. Leaders in the US and Europe have increasingly decried radical extremism on the internet and have attempted to enlist internet companies in a fight to suppress it.
Many of those companies have been receptive to the idea and already have procedures to block violent and hateful content. Neither Facebook and Google would confirm automation of these efforts to Reuters, which relied on two anonymous sources who are "familiar with the process"... The secret identification and automated blocking of extremist speech would raise new, serious questions about the cooperation of private corporations with censorious governmental interests.
Reuters calls it "a major step forward for internet companies that are eager to eradicate violent propaganda from their sites and are under pressure to do so from governments around the world as attacks by extremists proliferate, from Syria to Belgium and the United States." They also report that the move follows pressure from an anti-extremism group "founded by, among others, Frances Townsend, who advised former president George W. Bush on homeland security, and Mark Wallace, who was deputy campaign manager for the Bush 2004 re-election campaign."
Many of those companies have been receptive to the idea and already have procedures to block violent and hateful content. Neither Facebook and Google would confirm automation of these efforts to Reuters, which relied on two anonymous sources who are "familiar with the process"... The secret identification and automated blocking of extremist speech would raise new, serious questions about the cooperation of private corporations with censorious governmental interests.
Reuters calls it "a major step forward for internet companies that are eager to eradicate violent propaganda from their sites and are under pressure to do so from governments around the world as attacks by extremists proliferate, from Syria to Belgium and the United States." They also report that the move follows pressure from an anti-extremism group "founded by, among others, Frances Townsend, who advised former president George W. Bush on homeland security, and Mark Wallace, who was deputy campaign manager for the Bush 2004 re-election campaign."
you are to draw the line at "no censorship".
Apparently our brave and fearless leaders need to learn this the hard way, again.
can block or not. Uber can block. wish the Jets could.
One easy application for this fingerprinting and hashing tech would be on FB itself! My name and picture have been getting cloned by scammers with increasing frequency, and it's now up to about once a week. I'm about to delete my Facebook presence, since I use it only for commenting on group sites anyway, now that apologizing to people on my Friends list when they get spam from cloners is taking up too much of my time.
this is and will be used to remove any "unfavorable speech" as they so well put it. no matter whether it be "extreme" or not.
I would hope this would provide a little incentive to find alternatives to Google. The Yacy project seems like a good start. Or maybe it's too kludgey like Freenet. Either way, decentralization and ad hoc networks are our only hope for an open and secure internet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
like, oh, pro-Brexit as an example.
Do you have ESP?
Truth is, Freedom of Speech is dead. We have news organizations that purposely change the message of new stories to fit their agenda. We have big internet companies pushing their political agenda via their services. We have the government watching everyone, under the guise of "our security and safety".
Everything you say is watched, everything you post is noted. If it doesn't fit the agenda of who's in charge, it will be deleted, shadowbanned or you'll get a visit from the authorities, or just as bad, a DMCA/Court order.
America was a nice place to live. Soon it might not be.
Be seeing you...
Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist?
O'Brien: Of course he exists.
Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me?
O'Brien: You do not exist.
dissident, person disagreeing with the status quo. It's a slippery slope, and when the people controlling the Internet can also control and shape opinion, you can bet they will.
What's extreme about making fun of people with imaginary friends?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Better people than you. That's all you need to know. Know your place, citizen.
But when will you actually DO SOMETHING about it?
You do realize the goal of limiting freedom of expression is to completely dominate a population? What freedom to fight back do you think we will have by the time your life is over? Do you mean to keep "rationalizing" tyranny and your inaction against it? Do you mean to keep meandering in your thought between the possible "peaceful solutions" while violence is done against your interests?
.. the destruction of free speech. I think it's double-plus-good! :)))
Post a critical comment on a news story and look at that story from another account and it looks very different. The post is only visible from your own account.
So really this is not about certain speech, this is about the international companies Google and Facebook picking sides in some sort of cold war that is apparently starting up right this minute between the West and presumably the Asian, Slavic, and Middle Eastern governments.
If an international company is going to pick a side and fire the opening salvo, it really should be under governmental and democratic oversight. We, the people of the US and Europe should have a say in who our enemies are and when, if, and how we start going after them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Nothing. Just like making fun of people with imaginary 'genders.'
Why's that? Who gets to decide what is 'extreme', 'hate', or 'political etherodoxy'?
Perhaps the tree of liberty needs more blood.
Let's all be reminded that not wanting to pay for millions of illegal immigrants' welfare, food stamps, school, college, and medical bills is officially an extremist position by our current government, who is currently doing their best to remove the word 'illegal' from all official government documents.
"Facebooks jobs is to be a nice social place"
Oh really? How does it make its money then?
By advertising.
So let's rewrite that statement.
"Facebooks jobs is to lure people into a false sense of security and use their personal information to control their economic activity"
Google is the same.
Your lack of critical thought is inexcusable.
I think you missed the sarcasm.
This is the problem. What is 'extremist'?
I suspect that if defined by the alleged victims, it will be at least the opinions of those they disagree with.
And it becomes censorship.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This is just sweeping the problem under the rug, instead of you know, solving it.
All they will achieve is to push the extremists to less known and encrypted places, and make em a lot harder to watch for or infiltrate.
Speech promoting violence is against Youtube policy. So you'd expect it to get suppressed along with all other speech which violates terms of service. The same is true of racist views. As a private company, they don't have to allow their platform to be used as soap box for anything which can be said on soap box on a public street. I have seen some pretty disgusting stuff on Youtube and reported for removal. But I don't think anyone would or should get arrested for spewing such crap (some was regurgitation of antisemitic nonsense and some was instructions in how to add as much gore as possible to publicly planted explosiones). I don't think Google would want to a platform for spreading either, but even the one which instructed in how to make explosions gory did not actually call for violence to happen (only how to make it more graphic if it were to happen) and because it could be claimed to have artistic value to potential film makers, it would not necessarily get a conviction at a trial. Even something more innocent (instructions on how to steal cars) is probably not something that a Google streaming service would want to host. Just because we, as a society, decided we are better off not jailing ass holes, doesn't mean that everyone who has the ability to do so has to assist them in being ass holes.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Freedom of speech is about the government stopping you to express some speech. It has never been about the government watching you , which is more akin to the safe from search, and it has never EVER been about a private entity censoring what they want. If google censor every republican for example, then it is censorship, but it is not about freedom of speech. Why do american keep making that error ?
By the way this is also why I laugh myself hard when people in the US states they prefer private entity over the government. Guess what ? The government is bound in most countries by some form of constitution. Private entity are not. You can be far more repressed by a private entity (e.g. censorship) than you are by a government, and you may not vote them out contrary to a government. Private entity are far more repressive and arbitrary than governments (at least in our western part of the world). That is why I do not want private entity having a say in what should be important sector of a country , energy, communication, defense, justice, health care among others.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Obviously, it is always difficult to opose white male people, but this is right thing to do. Es an European, I can't see any contribution of hate speech to our societies. Perhaps European Commision could form protected rooms ("hate clubs") where those people (white male uneducated + "fachidiots" angry mob) can express their frustrations towards various minorities, while not disturbing normal people.
839*929
If this is about recognizing and deleting already banned video even if recoded and/or edited, it's basically de-duplicating. If this is about actually recognizing extremist speech it must be miracle code...
But I'm pretty sure that the copyright thing just works by recognizing music/video that already has been taken down in other clips.
Every time I post "I HATE FACEBOOK" on my Facebook account they close another account.
Expressing nationalist or patriotic speech is considered "extremist" speech by many these days. Who sets the bar on "extreme" speech? Once you start restricting things like speech, history shows an organization will only tighten in restrictions.
NRRPT/RCT
How you go about labeling it as extreme can effectively clamp down on utterly essential criticism--when it's something like the third gender person is suggesting someone probably need to see a mental health professional about the whole Apache helicopter thing or an open Islamist saying those guys are too over the top about jihad, they're very likely right. It can also prevent important discussions about how it may not matter if some people's overly-delicate feelings are being hurt, what's being asserted may be at its core a mass of privilege, entitlement, wishful thinking, and the implicit or explicit belief that...well...everybody is equal but some people are more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.
It is entirely possible for the censors to not only undergo radicalization and see all opposition to what they see as obviously Right and Good as eeeevil extremism, this could happen without them even noticing it.
Just because it's being done by private companies does not make censorship have no chilling effect, especially given the nature of the platforms they control.