Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Isn't Removing Enough Hate Speech, Complains The EU (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNN:
Twitter is not good enough at removing hate speech from its platform. That's the judgment of Europe's top regulator, which released data on Thursday showing that Twitter has failed to meet its standard of taking down 50% of hate speech posts after being warned that they include objectionable content. Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Google have all agreed to do more, promising last May to review a majority of hate speech flagged by users within 24 hours and to remove any illegal content.
A year into the agreement, the European Commission said that Facebook and YouTube, which is owned by Google, have both managed to remove 66% of reported hate speech. Twitter's rate, meanwhile, was 38%. That's below the commission's standard but a major improvement from December, when the service was removing only 19% of hate speech... Twitter was also slightly slower than rivals Facebook and YouTube when it came to reviewing content. The regulator said that Facebook reviewed flagged content within 24 hours in 58% of cases. YouTube did the same 43% of the time, while Twitter met the 24-hour benchmark in 39% of cases.
European lawmakers are considering laws mandating the blocking of online hate speech, so they're carefully watching what happens when social media companies self-regulate.
"Tackling illegal hate speech online is a contribution to the fight against terrorism," argued the EU Commission's top justice official.
A year into the agreement, the European Commission said that Facebook and YouTube, which is owned by Google, have both managed to remove 66% of reported hate speech. Twitter's rate, meanwhile, was 38%. That's below the commission's standard but a major improvement from December, when the service was removing only 19% of hate speech... Twitter was also slightly slower than rivals Facebook and YouTube when it came to reviewing content. The regulator said that Facebook reviewed flagged content within 24 hours in 58% of cases. YouTube did the same 43% of the time, while Twitter met the 24-hour benchmark in 39% of cases.
European lawmakers are considering laws mandating the blocking of online hate speech, so they're carefully watching what happens when social media companies self-regulate.
"Tackling illegal hate speech online is a contribution to the fight against terrorism," argued the EU Commission's top justice official.
Anything the person in charge doesn't want to hear.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So... what this guy is saying is that he hates terrorism? Shouldn't we block him too?
#DeleteFacebook
What Learless Feeders like the EU totally fail to comprehend is that we don't all agree with them. On person's hate speech is another person's free speech. Just because they don't like something on the internet doesn't mean they need to, or can, ban it. One would think the EU would know history better.
Exactly this. Twitter is now blocking elected politicians in some countries because they call out EU on their migration policies. Who the f*ck are they to decide what is hateful, and to whom??
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
One man's hate speech is another man's religious doctrine.
Remember that Twitter is a company and owns the platform. They should be able to control what is posted on their app/service as the owner. To suggest a "Freedom to Hear" is that you are suggesting laws that prevent Twitter from deciding who can or cannot post on their platform.
You clearly have not thought this through. To legally guarantee a venue for Free Speech, you now also make all groups equal. You can no longer block/shut down ISIS accounts because they too deserve their own place to disseminate their ideological views, Berkeley must allow conservative ass-wipes to give speeches, and the KKK can harass minority people by handing out fliers to them.
Maybe what's more troubling is how we have allowed so much of our communication and public spaces to be commandeered by private companies. People having to depend on closed platforms, servers, and for-profit business plans for everyday life too much, where distributed, independent methods like email and RSS could be used in the past.
Wow. 134 days into the dumpster fire of a presidency and they're still raising an effigy of Hillary to try to intercept flak. That doesn't just reek of desperation, it's just sad.
There's a video below of a gentleman at what appears to be an anti-fascist demonstration holding a sign saying, "The right to openly discuses ideas must be defended". According to the so called anti-fascists he's a Nazi and a fascist for having these opinions:
https://twitter.com/BasedMonitored/status/862025400951742464
Leftists of Slashdot, at what point do you start condemning the action of your fellow leftists? Most leftists are remaining very quiet as about this new form of fascism, that is coming in the guise of anti-fascism. Are you just going to stay quiet as Europe becomes a fascist state where only some opinions are permitted?
This is a very dangerous situation, and action must be taken by all sides to protect free speech. I feel strongly that free speech should be enshrined in law, just as it is in the US. Sadly, I see very little chance of that happening. We're on a slippery slope and we're already at least half way down it.
Damn those white Christians that keep exploding all over Europe.
In fact, a shitskin muzzie just mowed down a bunch of pedestrians on the London Bridge just minutes ago.
But yes, that white Christian terrorism, whoo boy we gotta do something about that!
Faggot.
Right now, the left is in the process of rejecting freedom of speech as a reactionary concept. Freedom of speech has been a cherished left-wing virtue for decades, advanced by people like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, and many other radical luminaries. But lately the concept has come to be associated with the right, thanks to the vagaries of our political culture. If we were a smart, we would recognize not only that freedom of speech is consistent with left-wing principles, but also that appearing to be against freedom of speech is a sure-fire way to lose the support of potential adherents. But this kind of strategic thinking serves only to advance the movement itself; it does not advance the interests of the people within the movement. Indeed, the more that we drift into a âoefree speech is conservativeâ frame, the less people will be willing to defend the concept, even if doing so would be in our strategic political self-interest.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The USA offers freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
In the USA a person can comment on the politics and policy of illegal immigration.
People in the USA can link to news about the results of illegal immigration in their local communities.
About the costs, funding and political groups supporting illegal immigration.
People in the USA can also draw cartoons about religion and faith. They even have the freedom to create animations with music about religions, religions leaders and what people do in the name of their faith.
In the USA people can comment on Communist party policy, its leaders and history.
Thats why different people all over the world like, support and enjoy the freedoms the USA offers and protects.
In the USA people are creative, smart, productive, they have the imagination and the freedom to talk, to read books, to review books, create, study and publish.
In other parts of the world SJW and police watch accounts and report people for their comments.
Nations are free to police and enforce blasphemy laws and protect the Communist leadership in their own nations but trying to project that onto the rest of the world? Or trying to alter network use outside their own nation?
If nations in Europe have an issue with a site or online product then ban it for all people in that nation.
Watch over every user trying to connect to that banned site and log their ip. If they try to connect too often after an official online warning, send some official to their home to conduct a formal interview.
No problems, no questions, instant results and no more news about conditions in that EU nation been talked about online.
No news, no links to the media out side that EU nation. No comments about local conditions, about local politics.
The rest of the world can get on with been free and enjoying freedom.
The EU can revert back to questions of faith and interviewing people who say bad things about Communist party policy.
US products and services that support freedom of speech will grow, other nations government approved sites will be used by government workers.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The "right" doesn't care, for the most part. By and large, they really are about free speech.
They just don't like the hypocrisy that the "left" espouses. If the left is going to say that hate speech should be regulated, then the left has to be held to their own standard. That they aren't is the problem the right sees and exposes.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." Wasn't that an Alinsky directive? Ironic that it can be used against his disciples, isn't it?
If you stop being afraid the terrorists lose.. It's their goal to terrorize people to make you afraid and make people want things like this to be put in place.
No, their goal is to take over society, install Sharia law, and kill all the infidels. If you stop being afraid, and don't attempt to stop them, they'll only reach their goal sooner.