Slashdot Mirror
Social Media Giants Step Up Joint Fight Against Extremist Content (reuters.com)
Social media giants Facebook, Google's YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft said on Monday they were forming a global working group to combine their efforts to remove terrorist content from their platforms. From a report: Responding to pressure from governments in Europe and the United States after a spate of militant attacks, the companies said they would share technical solutions for removing terrorist content, commission research to inform their counter-speech efforts and work more with counter-terrorism experts. The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism "will formalize and structure existing and future areas of collaboration between our companies and foster cooperation with smaller tech companies, civil society groups and academics, governments and supra-national bodies such as the EU and the UN," the companies said in a statement.
[THIS POST HAS BEEN REMOVED]
As long as they have a good definition of terrorist. And they'll need to explain the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter/revolutionary/protester.
I can't complain because that might be considered too radical or extreme and it might cause someone to experience terror. We can't have people waking up from their beige, bland, blind sleep.
I thought I came to Slashdot, not reddit. My mistake.
But the actual people calling for death and destruction? That's all just fine and dandy.
And what's with the pedo pages on facebook and twitter still existing? Been too long to use the excuse of 'honeypot' anymore....
They're outraged at the thought of censorship, denouncing the authoritarian agenda, and otherwise pretending to stand up for freedom.
It's how those white people be.
They work so many hours and don't take vacation time. It was white people that created Seattle Hundreds. Other have to try to keep up with their ridiculous work ethic or they make us look bad.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8...
You are welcome on my lawn.
That is not an AC post! Well not really. Jeez, never seen so many people in my life afraid to say who they are....
Caution: Contents under pressure
Other races don't want to work as hard. I don't blame them. They don't have the same work ethic we do.
I heard if your job requires Seattle Hundreds then you can visit the Seattle Public Library and check out an H1B temp worker to cover your hours while you sleep. Or maybe that was, you can check out a WiFi MiFi hotspot for three weeks of free internet instead of using dial up because Seattle home internet is only dial up. Or maybe it was something about a Seattle zombie apocalypse. It's so hard to remember all these fucking bullshit stories about Seattle, you know.
..takes a lot of time, and it is expensive.e..
That is true, but it sucks for those of us not from Asia. Why shouldn't we be allowed to get vacation time? Other than around Christmas, Microsoft hasn't allowed me a single day off except for a few days around Christmas. After over two decades of working from about 9am until midnight every day, seven days a week, I haven't met anyone so I'll never have children. I have two nieces in Iowa, but I've only ever gotten to see them a few days around Christmas. I basically missed-out on seeing them grow-up. That sucks since I will never have children of my own. I hate my life.
They work so many hours and don't take vacation time.
Yes, they do. As a black guy with a demanding wife, I've been fired from four jobs so far since she wanted to take a long weekend off. I chose her over my employer. The best job I've lost so far was at Microsoft Azure that was within walking distance of our apartment. They wouldn't allow me time off, so I said I was taking it anyway since I earned it, then they fired me. Washington state law doesn't require them to pay-out accrued vacation time, so I lost a lot of money by doing that. Still worth it.
Because Youtube, Twitter and Facebook hate peace and love making the world miserable.
Without the social media to guide them, how will the defenders of the 1% find the evil terrorists? It's not like they are doing any intelligence work or police work. They need the obvious. They need people to shout online that they are angry. They need people to stand up in online public places and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"
That's how they nab 'em.
...omphaloskepsis often...
We must defeat these cyber terrorists with every cyber weapon we have! Cyber space must be rid of these cyber animals.
I have joined all these cyber sites to do my part to counter their cyber speech with my cyber skills.
What more can the Global Cyber Forum do to counter cyber terrorism? Easy, we must rally together all cyber warriors(no cybersex please) and work in unison!
I'm now taking names of those of you cyber citizens who wish to be cyber commanders in our cyber army. Please respond with a brief summary of your cyber skills- right here on this cyber page - and tell me how you can lead your fellow cyber citizens to cyber victory.
That is your culture. Mine is to work every day as long as demanded and never take vacation time.
And they'll need to explain the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter/revolutionary/protester.
How do so few people have access to a dictionary?
terrorism
: the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
freedom fighter
: a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment
protest
: a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Can't afford to lose your job. Unemployed for a day and you're unemployable for life.
Not paying out vacation time is the only fair thing since people not working don't get it. Washington again proves they're more progressive.
You know, nazi trollbots. The "politically acceptable in 2017" astroturfing of every issue with racial invective and fear of the other, ridiculous assertions made for shock value and public discord and no other goal. At some point we have a choice between unfettered speech and a dual-insurgency that has no interest in legitimate society, because allowing a certain level of degeneration in public discourse is tantamount to granting extremists free reign and in fact ownership of those faculties and medias. It's difficult to define but easy to spot, like (most) pornography. It certainly doesn't benefit from an arbitrary authoritarianism, but there absolutely has to be some mediating force or limitation on such speech not only because it results in violent rhetoric and in fact violence, but because it IS AIMED at achieving those ends, directly. It is defined by that motive alone. That motive is, in fact, a crime in our society.
It seems I'm going to have to be that guy that tells other people, "these are private sites and they can do whatever they want to their own site"
If you don't like how site XYZ operates then please do not use it! There are plenty of websites out there and if none are to your liking then you can make your own.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Censorship does nothing to help convince people, it only strengthens their argument.
Leave it in place. Mark it as extremist and provide counter arguments side by side.
they will find this shit somewhere and read it with out you...
don't do the totalitarian bull shit.
As long as it also includes dangerous anti-science misinformation as well as more traditional forms of incitement and hate speech too.
That is true, but it sucks for those of us not from Asia.
My last plane tickets from Seattle to Chennai cost $6,784 for my wife, two kids, and me. Why shouldn't we get priority? You can probably just drive home to see your family. Plus, our flight required 29 hours there and 32 hours back. We need three weeks off in order to spend enough time there to matter. Yes, that sucks for you, but we need that.
n/t
And that is why WA is booming. Not requiring vacation time means you don't have to hire as many people and can have single points of failure.
Not paying out vacation time is the only fair thing since people not working don't get it. Washington again proves they're more progressive.
Welcome to Seattle where bringing everyone down to the same level is considered progressive.
As I've seen, those people are the only ones with the work ethic to do that. My company had every Indian, Chinese, and African-American employee quit besides me. Those people work hard which is why I can understand why the British Empire at one point controlled a fourth of the population of the world.
My last ticket home was almost that much for my family. That is why I demanded two weeks off. Sucks for everyone else that lost vacation time because of that.
There have been NO terrorist attacks on the banking oiligarchic families, almost like the terrorists are taking orders to specifically avoid them. Guess who controls the internet that would keep that fact from being discussed should their tech vassals prevail?
The plutocrats are challenging you, will you defend yourself?
How many whites have committed terrorist attacks or have joined terrorist networks? Or led to an explosion of number of violences or rapes.
When people in CA are lazy and take three weeks off each year while we take none, of course we're going to win.
Unless we destroy the ignorance of the underclass, they will be the death of the planet
So only white people can be racist?
You racist bastard! Black people can be anything white people can be, they are not unable to be anything just because they're black! Get over your white privilege!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The leftist liberal bleeding heart ideological takeover starts and ends here. Thought Police 101.
The term patriot is now considered questionable.
And anyone who questions anything but open-door immigration is somehow a "racist".
Also speech can now apparently be "violent".
So you can post something innocuous and be considered a violent racist.
You'd use censorship to stop violence?
That's funny, I'd use violence to stop censorship. If I had to.
'cos I heard that Germany were literal Nazis for wanting to do this.
The IRA had a safe home and huge money from Irish Americans for the Auld Country (tm) before 2001, and arms sales too, and if they're terrorists, then the USA supported terrorism for well over 20 years.
With honest and powerful companies like Google, Twitter and Microsoft working together to take care of this, we can finally sit back in our comfy chairs and know everything is taken care of. Whew! Aren't you feeling better, now?
Amazing how the Jewish Anti-Defamation league can post two pages with the same content (one pretending to be from Israel and the other from the Palestinians) and the Israeli page gets pulled while the Palestinian page stays. YouTube came in and demonetized all the MGTOW channels, deleted many of the gun channels, and anything else not part of the socialist orthodoxy.
Make no mistake, this is CENSORSHIP.
there go the x-games
Ha! White "extremists" are going to be among the first people targeted. People like Richard Spencer have already been banned (later reinstated) on Twitter. Colin Flaherty, who merely documents black on white violence with video evidence had his YouTube channel suspended, then terminated in 2015. He came back again, but YouTube is constantly taking down his videos. Many white nationalists are also banned from services like PayPal.
The Si Valley Libertarian party consists of Peter Thiel & John McAfee. Follow the donations to gauge the politics of the region.
Need to get the SJW folks and fat acceptance warriors labeled as extremist
My idea to a Knight News Challenge on Libraries : https://web.archive.org/web/20...
"Create a browser addon so when people post to the web they can send a copy for storage and hosting by a network of local libraries."
Sad that the Knight News Foundation has changed their software and so all the old contributions are no longer available. Hard to respect a group like that which takes so much hard work by so many people and just dumps it. It's an example of the very thing that contribution was about -- the need for distributed backups. Glad that info is still findable in archive.org -- until perhaps the Knight News Foundation puts up a broad robots.txt and makes it all inaccessible.
---- More details on the idea
Describe your project.
There are two many single points of failure on the internet for collections of important knowledge. For example, years of posts to Facebook, Reddit, Slashdot, MetaFilter, or SoylentNews would all be lost if those websites were to be shut down. We have an answer to that challenge.
While the Internet Archive is backing up some of the internet, it is another single point of failure. We propose developing data standards, software applications, coordination protocols. and hardware specifications so every local library in the world can participate in backing up part of the internet. While that brings up many copyright concerns, we have an approach to deal with that.
We propose making web browser addon applications major web browsers. This browser addon would make it easy for people posting content to any website on the internet to send a copy for safe keeping to their local library (or other access gateway). From there, the content would be distributed across the distributed library network. Any previously published content they have written could also be added to this system using that browser app. The content would be sent a standardized form for indexing and linking with other content using semantic information. Users would specify a Creative Commons license or similar free license for their content when they contributed the content. Each data item would be assigned a unique hash for its content to help ensure its integrity and retrievability (similar to how the Git source control system stores information).
Each local library might only store terabytes of information (likely using Apache Hadoop and perhaps Apache Accumulo or similar software). But, together as a network, thousands of local libraries could store the world's knowledge in a reliable distributed way. Even one library would have the absolutely most important data for that locality, and any few libraries would have most of the popular data across the network.
How does this project advance the library field?
Libraries have historically kept paper copies of the world's information. There were multiple copies of every published book archived across the library network even if each library typically only had one copy of only some of the total. This project will help libraries do the same for the world's digital information -- with each library having part of a distributed whole. In a somewhat holographic way, each library would maintain a copy of the most important information for its local patrons, while also serving as a backup for some of the rest of the data from outside its locality.
Who is the audience and what are their information needs?
The global web community, The Internet Archive. The need is to have reliable backups of freely published digital information.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
https://chomsky.info/200401__/
"CHOMSKY: It's close to a historical universal that the term "terror" is used for their terror against us and our clients, not our terror against them. Heads of states can qualify as "terrorists," when they are official enemies."
https://chomsky.info/20011018-...
"Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it.
But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't have all the wrong consequences."
https://chomsky.info/200205__0... ...
"The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of "terrorism" given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against _us_, not the terrorism we carry out against _them_. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an "earthly paradise" as they fought off the "Chinese bandits" terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find.
The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its "u
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
We are not in fear of "extremism". We are in fear of violence. So this initiative is already a lie, as stated. Is there any *practical* difference between this policy and creating a means of systematic censorship of political opinion on the internet? If not, we must oppose it.
The writeup went from 'extremist' to 'terrorist' effortlessly. As if these are in some way equivalent.
But no matter, this, in the U.S. is indistinguishable to me from prior restraint. Only the reality that these companies are not constrained by the First Amendment, and offer a service that need not actually abide by the First Amendment, saves them. It also should illuminate their operations. Facebook, for instance, cannot be considered a news organization. Oh, wait, they actually do publish news. Will they distinguish between protected news content and unprotected 'other' content? Can they? Is there a difference between a sponsored CNN post and the rantings of a college professor on their own page?
Indeed, is the CNN post news, commentary, opinion? Should it be protected by the First Amendment? Does Facebook, for example, have a responsibility, bound to permit it in its entirety, or can Facebook pick and choose CNN posts, edit them, suppress them, as it wishes? It does so with user content. Is that a violation of the First Amendment?
What makes my posts unworthy of constitutional protection on Facebook, but CNN's posts, which to so many are clearly biased opinion not fact, protected? Merely because they come from an organization that used to be considered a reliable news outlet?
This is a terrible thing for free speech, despite the attraction of suppressing terrorism and violence by shutting off the terrorists... But CNN and other 'news outlets' have, recently, published reports of seemingly reasonable people in the US calling for or supporting the assassination of elected officials. Do we actually intend to suppress those statements? Why?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I can't describe a social justice warrior, but I know one when I see one. Sound familiar?
Just saw that Rahiel Kasim, Scientific Programmer at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, made a plugin like this -- yay!
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
===
I made a browser extension [1] that automatically archives bookmarks to archive.is or (currently Chromium only) locally as MHTML files.
[1]: https://github.com/rahiel/arch...
===
Seen here:
"Show HN: Tesoro -- Personal internet archive (tesoro.io)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
He was responding to other people with similar ideas for browser plugins.
Now we just need the local library infrastructure and data standards to connect to.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
from the article- "counter-speech efforts"
Do we really need to say more? The whole point of 'freedom of speech' is that who ever controls speech controls information. Speech never harms anyone, anyone can say or write whatever they want all day long and no one is harmed unless a) someone is somehow forced to listen or read, b) someone acts on the ideas in the speech. Speech is not the crime or even the real concern the actions are and should be.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
If I say religion is bullshit, is that extremist? Will my post be removed?
And in other news, people screamed and fainted at recent performances of 1984 on Broadway.
What was once fiction is now reality -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministry_of_Truth