Slashdot Mirror
EU Threatens Twitter And Facebook With Possible 'Hate Speech' Laws (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
On Sunday, the European Commission warned Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube and Microsoft that if the companies do not address their hate speech problems, the EU will enact legislation that will force them to do so. In May, those five companies voluntarily signed a code of conduct to fight illegal hate speech on their platforms within 24 hours... But on Sunday, the European Commission revealed that the companies were not complying with this code in a satisfactory manner.
"In practice the companies take longer and do not yet achieve this goal. They only reviewed 40 percent of the recorded cases in less than 24 hours," a Commission official told Reuters. The Commission's report found that YouTube responded to reports of harassment the fastest, and unsurprisingly, Twitter found itself in last place. "If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months," Jourova told the Financial Times on Sunday.
"In practice the companies take longer and do not yet achieve this goal. They only reviewed 40 percent of the recorded cases in less than 24 hours," a Commission official told Reuters. The Commission's report found that YouTube responded to reports of harassment the fastest, and unsurprisingly, Twitter found itself in last place. "If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months," Jourova told the Financial Times on Sunday.
I detest hate speech but censorship isn't the solution is it.
Besides I imagine filtering hate speech to be nigh on impossible with what is regarded as hate speech these days.
Sounds like the mega-companies need to step up their bribery efforts. I mean "donation" efforts.
They voluntarily signed the code of conduct.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
"freedom of speech" is not the only freedom in the world. It has to be balanced against all other freedoms. These freedoms may be weighted differently in different regions of the globe, but even in the US "freedom of speech" ist not universal above everything else. Just try crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then claiming freedom of speech.
In these cases the problem is *really* hate. Hate in "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" (withouth the * of course). Should posts like these *really* be protected with nothing the person attacked can do? EU law says otherwise, but twitter&co rather do nothing - some say because a good hate-filled "discussion" gives more page views and therefore more ad revenue.
Uh, isn't "whiteness" the color of his skin and "maleness" his gender? You should judge people as individuals, not simply based on their race or gender. Until you do that, you are a racist, PopeRatzo.
Do you think the crazy people who deny the Holocaust will stop believing it just because you have a law against it? That is the problem with Europe in general: they pretend everything is fine but don't solve the root problems. It is better to identify the problem and come up with solutions.
You misunderstand. We're not banning the hate speech and pretend everything is fine, we actively educate our young so they know what happened and why, we show them, we make them understand that such a thing must never happen again. Everyone knows there's some nutcases that will still deny the Holocaust, but they are quite uniformly seen as misguided or sick, when not outright criminal. Unfortunately, young people also tend to be susceptible to "brainwashing" (e.g. political or religious), so education about these matters is not a totally failsafe proposition.
Populists (Le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, Trump in the US) often skirt the issues and are identified as dangerous by the educated, but fail to be understood by the less educated - as seen this weekend in Austria, where it is mostly the simple workers that voted for the (thankfully losing) far-right candidate. Note, I'm not bashing workers, simply pointing out insufficient knowledge about some things.
Here, we also try to make people understand that anyone selling simple solutions is probably full of BS, and things are probably more complex.
Privilege is not an attribute of an individual. It is a status that society proffers based upon an attribute or set of attributes.
I do not blame you for being elevated beyond your abilities or innate qualities. I blame society. You're just the lucky beneficiary who otherwise wouldn't be able to cut the mustard. And yes, I mean you as an individual. Now I might blame you for lacking the awareness to recognize the benefits you have been afforded, however. Again, I mean you personally.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The proper reaction to "bad" speech is good speech.
Which didn't work in literally Hitler's case. The arguments about him then banning speech don't really apply: he got to that level of power using speech when opposing speech wasn't banned.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Point out the over-representation of Islam in terrorism, the inbreeding, lack of education and over-representation in crime in refugee populations. That's politically incorrect.
Yeah, I want to go back to the days when it was OK to claim that people from other countries had tails and ate babies. Anything else is political correctness gone mad.
Seriously, though, if you engage in discussion and debate facts, most people won't accuse you of hate speech. However, those have to be fair facts. In order to prove the "over-representation of Islam in terrorism", you have to deliberately limit the debate to the 21st century, because the history of terrorism involves a hell of a lot of white Christians, including anarchists across Europe and the very prominent Irish republican movement. While the WTC attacks are the single biggest act of terror in terms of direct casualties, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by nationalist terrorists resulted in a war that left almost 40 million dead, wounded or missing in action, and set the stage for the sequel in which 60-80 million people (3% of the world's population) died.
You can only have inbreeding in "refugee populations" if you keep people in refugee camps for multiple generations. If you mean inbreeding in immigrant populations, yes, that happens, but you're not being specific, and you're using the actions of a minority to smear a whole group.
Lack of education correlates highly with high crime rates. Refugee populations aren't generally given much of a chance to either A) get educated or B) get work, so there are certainly external pressures that push them to crime. But that's a problem that society can potentially solve.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'