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.
Censorchip... that's whats the UE want.
So... what this guy is saying is that he hates terrorism? Shouldn't we block him too?
#DeleteFacebook
Ban RealDonaldTrump and all his bot fans.
Hate speech will drop like a rock
A better choice would be for you to throw your computer in a dumpster and stay off the internet.
Stupid posts on Slashdot would drop like a rock.
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.
Ah, does it hurt your little feelings that Don-Don has to buy followers from a script-monkey?
You know, you could make something more of your life, if you just spent it turning food into shit.
of intolerance. That is something the Democrats get that the Republicans never will because the Republicans oppress freedom of speech by allowing speech they shouldn't allow.
I think we should immediately switch to the Bender quote right now, bypassing all the racism and religious bias. We would save decades of pointless wars.
#DeleteFacebook
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
...of equal importance to Freedom of Speech?
And what about the ears of the poor censors deciding what's good or bad to be heard?
One man's hate speech is another man's religious doctrine.
Forget to take our meds today?
You don't want to kill white people? Are you some kind of a Russian Trump Hitler?
Twitter in particular is fairly open about their political bias in censorship. I think that's perfectly OK for a business - there are all kinds of walled gardens, after all, and some people seem to enjoy them. I just wish these social media companies were more open and honest about it all, but I guess it really is hard to see one's own biases.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Twitter definitely enjoys free speech protection for its operation in the US, definitely not for its operations in other countries.
LSMFQT? Lucky Strike Means Fine Quality Tobacco.
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.
A quick question for everyone.
Kathy Griffin holding the bloody, severed head of the US president was all over twitter the other day.
Does this image count as hate speech? Will Kathy lose her twitter account, or will reposters of the image be banned or penalized in any way?
I'm just wondering if the content is important, as opposed to the political bias.
There is a definition, but you neither know nor care.
PS "child pornography" is defined as "whatever I thnk too young is"? Because in Japan, the legal age is way lower. And in some states and arab nations, it's higher than 18. And some places it's KP even if it's merely middle aged women dressing up as schoolgirls.
Also "Free speech restrictions are whatever I decide is impeding what I want to hear", right?
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.
Seriously. If you don't have physical operations in the EU, you will not have to worry about the continent's rulers' permanent inability to respect the concept of free speech.
Haha, just try speaking like that on tv or in most public venues.
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.
Sure, but irrelevant: it's still only binding to the US, not to other countries. Basically if you are in Germany the US Constitution grants you free speech in the sense that it protects your free speech from begin censored by the US government, but it doesn't protect you in any way from being censored by the German government...
But yes, that white Christian terrorism, whoo boy we gotta do something about that!
Faggot.
Now now, let's not be prejudiced!
There's no evidence to suggest that it was Muslim in any way. We should wait until the official reports come in.
Let's not jump to conclusions.
Basically if you are in Germany the US Constitution grants you free speech in the sense that it protects your free speech from begin censored by the US government, but it doesn't protect you in any way from being censored by the German government...
Which means that the German government has no business impeding on an American entity, such as Twitter Inc, legally incorporated in Delaware, USA.
In short, Germany's authority would (should) only extend to the Twitter user that was in Germany at the time of posting a tweet in violation of German law. But then again, we know that the Germans have a tendency to not care about borders.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Twitter definitely enjoys free speech protection for its operation in the US, definitely not for its operations in other countries.
Perhaps if the laws are different, then the citizens of these countries should not be allowed to access Twitter at all, ever. Arrest them for using a web service that violates the laws in their country. Problem completely solved. Kind of like the VolksRadio.
Being Europe. that punishment would be interesting given the fancy things y'all have done in the past.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you're talking about hate on a specific "race", you would have to ban pretty much everyone politicized from twitter to accomplish that.
Dude, great post!
Insightful, with a clear point and historical context. Whether anyone agrees with the position is immaterial - it in NO WAY should have been modded down.
You are a victim of the forces you are commenting upon, and I'm sorry for that.
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"
>Wow. 134 days into the dumpster fire of a presidency and they're still raising an effigy of Hillary
You mean the liberal media? Yeah. They keep on flogging that dead horse like it's going to suddenly wake up and charge the enemy.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> of intolerance. That is something the Democrats get that the Republicans never will because the Republicans oppress freedom of speech by allowing speech they shouldn't allow.
You have that exactly backwards.
It's liberals that throw hissy fits, riot, and claim it's fine to punch anyone they don't approve of. Your notion of liberalism and Democrats is at least 20 years out of date if not more.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Good job Britian getting out of this mess.
Liberals, Democrats, Republicans... blah blah blah.... Sounds like the brainwashing sideshow really has you fucked up. Censorship aint a partisan issue, and no amount of finger-pointing will make it so. It's not them, and it's not you, and it's not me, it's us.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
yay!
I'm what you'd call left-wing, from Europe - but what I see is that anything anyone merely disagrees with is hate speech. This is madness. It has to stop.
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Simple solution...
If you don't like what's being said in the U.S., don't connect to our servers and download it.
Problem solved.
I think China has some technology you can license, if you need help with this.
Coward indeed.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Because "hate speech" clearly is the worst problem the world is facing right now.
How about we focus on the truth value of information instead of the subjective, emotional aspects? Now that would be something new. Who knows, we might end up with something worth the name "journalism" again.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I, for one, live in mortal fear of unpopular opinions. Moar censorship now!!!1!
Very imaginative theory - good work! But how does this relate to the queen of England being a reptile? I can see the extraterrestrial angle to your story. But how does Elvis get involved?
Excellent idea! Block the sitting President and watch what little remains of Twitter's relevancy evaporate overnight.
Really, besides Emperor Trump, who still actually users Twitter? I don't know anyone who will admit to it.
Isn't it fascinating how a "private company" can hemorrhage money for a decade and yet somehow, miraculously still remain a going concern? Almost like they were being propped up for some decidedly non-commercial reason.
You might have missed Twitter's EMEA headquarter in Dublin. It's naive to think you can do business in other countries and only have to abide to the law of the US.
Check the article please. It isn't Twitter who sets these rules (which would be OK, as it's their company). It is political bodies like EU who abuse their power to make companies like Twitter push their agenda. EU gets to decide what is hate speech. And that could be anything that goes against the interest of EU (the organisation, not the people..)
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
No it does not, it counts as a bloody stupid joke. Contrary to what people (probably anerican) seem to think hate speech is not defined as "what politician do not like" , in fact there are quite a few protection to ensure this is not used to squash normal non hate speech. Secondely the EU cj does not define hate speech, individual countries do, this may be difficult to understand to american but this is not like your federal system. The eu only define the action that may taken and how to ensure speech protection but does not define hate speech, this is up to each individual state, but if they did include "not liking your president" they would be squashed by the eu court on ground of human right - fredom of expression. No 2 state has then same hate speech definition, but most can be summarized as "call to violence , murder, or genocide against an ethnnic group, nationality or sub group if people" e.g. "kill all turban head" is hate speech, "decapitate trump" is not, it is just blody stupid.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ira, basque liberation, corse liberation, Red army fraction.... most terrorism in europe was not islamist. In fact most terrorism in the usa (and possibly eu) is actually local born and non muslim, think ehite supremacist and ALF, look it up on fbi page for the us, it is just that media rarely report most of it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You might have missed Twitter's EMEA headquarter in Dublin
Irrelevant. Last time I checked, Twitter's Dublin office was a separate legal entity from Twitter Inc. I'm quite sure that it's Twitter Inc which owns the servers hosting all of Twitter's data.
The fact that Twitter Inc controls Twitter Dublin does not mean that Twitter Dublin gets to control Twitter Inc.
That does not mean that the Irish government cannot require Twitter Dublin to abide by its laws. It can indeed, since the Twitter entity in Dublin falls within their jurisdiction. However, their authority stops at the border. EU laws stop at EU borders, and therefore EU laws have no business trying to control data on a server hosted by a US company in a datacenter on US soil. The US has a pretty strong protection of free speech, unlike the EUSSR.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
EU laws stop at EU borders, and therefore EU laws have no business trying to control data on a server hosted by a US company in a datacenter on US soil.
As long as the data is in US soil and remains in US soil... but Twitter is serving data outside of US soil and into the EU.
Look, it's not a difficult concept: if you operate in a country you have to abide to its laws, and serving content means you do operate in that country, even if the content originates from the US. Again, try exporting and selling something from the US into the EU and trying to claim you somehow can bypass all EU consumer laws since you are "incorporated in the US"... Good luck with such business plan.
and we must ignore the white supremacist that killed 2 people in the last week or so for trying to stop racial abuse
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
When a US company decides to set up shop in a foreign country, it has to play by the laws of that country. US law does not trump (ouch..) other country's law.
So when Twitter gets orders to stifle free speech in Germany because it goes against German law, Twitter has three options: 1) Lobby to get German law changed. 2) Obey German law. or 3) Pull out of Germany.
Then follow the money.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Now travel to, say, North Korea and repeat this statement.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
...then it's *your* speech.
There's clearly a need to decentralize these kind of services (social platforms in this case) to make them censorship resistant and privacy-preserving.
What are the efforts being worked on?
Of course they can: the law in the US forbids the US government from stifling free speech, but imposes no such obligation on private entities such as Twitter which, as a private company, has no obligation to protect free speech and can censor whatever it wants for whatever reason.
I'm not gonna let act of that shit happen, because I care about freedom in the UK.
So what would be your plan to stop them ? Appease them, and hope they kill you last ?
Go back to your safe space, wounded snowflake.
There is no "speech they shouldn't allow" if we're adhering to the principles of free speech. It's a pretty simple concept.
The EU hates freedom of speech. Got it.
Look, it's not a difficult concept: if you operate in a country you have to abide to its laws, and serving content means you do operate in that country, even if the content originates from the US
Again: totally irrelevant. Again: a child does not control the parent, the parent controls the child. There are also Twitter users in China, do you think Twitter is going to abide by Chinese law? There are also Twitter users in North Korea, do you think Twitter is going to abide by North Korean law? There are also Twitter users in Afghanistan, do you think Twitter is going to abide by Sharia law?
No, good sir, the EUSSR has no business interfering with a legal entity in the U.S.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Holy shit, this garbage gets modded +4 insightful? I know Slashdot is pretty low quality, but come on.
Guess I'd better set my expectations even lower.