Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft Will Create 'Hash' Database To Remove Extremist Content (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the two-is-better-than-one dept.

bongey writes: Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft are teaming up to create a common database to flag extremist videos and pictures. The database is set to go live in 2017. The system will not automatically remove content. Reuters reports: "The companies will share 'hashes' -- unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos -- of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms. 'We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online,' the companies said in a statement on Tuesday. Each company will decide what image and video hashes to add to the database and matching content will not be automatically removed, they said. The database will be up and running in early 2017 and more companies could be brought into the partnership."

12 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. and tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they'll censor whatever the fuck they want to.

    1. Re:and tomorrow by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This slope is so slippery that there is no possible way to move any direction but down.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:and tomorrow by Zandamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This slope is so slippery that there is no possible way to move any direction but down.

      The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
      source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

      --
      Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
    3. Re: and tomorrow by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is Liberty is more important than censorship. If you have to choose, always side with Liberty.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:and tomorrow by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand

      The issue at hand is that a bunch of companies are joining forces to control what you are allowed to see, and are starting off with one of the biggest boogie-men available to them as their reasoning for doing it.

      Perhaps you thought that there was a more important issue here?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re: and tomorrow by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Extremist meaning content actually calling for immediate violence against others, or just being against safe spaces, multigender pronouns, and other nonsense like that?

      Whatever they want it to mean.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:and tomorrow by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So we are back to personal responsibility and vigilance, instead of trusting a free content host not to enforce its terms of service?

      Yawn. It's not censorship, you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.

      I'm okay with this until tales of abuses show up, and then I'm judging each side accordingly. Until then, there's nothing to do but spread the information.

      And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass, not the first of your slippery slope.

    7. Re:and tomorrow by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yawn. It's not censorship

      Yet another person who believes "censorship" means "first amendment violation." This is absolutely censorship, though it's "acceptable" because:

      you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.

      They're perfectly free to censor their content, it's their house.

      And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass

      I won't call you an ass, but you are the ignorant party here. That's not something to be proud of.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  2. Perceptual or cryptographic hash? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only 1 bit has to flip to create a mismatch on a cryptographic hash check, and if this system is widespread, doing so will become standard practice.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. This is so profoundly dangerous! by phamNewan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My guess is that pretty soon they will create a Social Credit Score like China is putting in place. Then anyone who disagrees can instantly be silenced online. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ch...

  4. Re:No different from China by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.

    I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?

  5. Dissent will be fake news by deecemobile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Say goodbye to free speech on the internet. This all started because democrats lost the Presidency and painted "fake" news as the scapegoat. Who will decide what constitutes "fake" news? Google, Facebook, etc - giant left-leaning entities that have massive control over people's internet experience and the information they access. I can see dissenting view points increasingly characterized as "fake" and effaced.