Slashdot Mirror
EU Gives Ultimatum To Facebook and Twitter: Obey Us Or We'll Start Regulating (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: The EU Commission has fired a shot across Facebook and Twitter's bows, having issued a proclamation decreeing that "social media platforms" must do more to remove "illegal content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism online." Although what is said in the EU proclamation is nothing new -- indeed, in the UK, the measures proposed by the EU's talking heads have been standard practice for years -- what matters here is not what is being said publicly, but instead the threat of what might happen unless Facebook appeases the bloc's leaders. The EU said that platforms should appoint dedicated points of contact for police forces and other State agencies to talk to about illegal content; appoint trusted content moderators ("flaggers," in EU-ese); and invest in "automatic detection technologies." In addition, illegal content should be deleted within "specific timeframes."
All straightforward; nothing new there, at least from the British perspective. Yet the threat is in the EU's later words: "Today's communication is a first step and follow-up initiatives will depend on the online platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines. The Commission will carefully monitor progress made by the online platforms over the next months and assess whether additional measures are needed."
All straightforward; nothing new there, at least from the British perspective. Yet the threat is in the EU's later words: "Today's communication is a first step and follow-up initiatives will depend on the online platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines. The Commission will carefully monitor progress made by the online platforms over the next months and assess whether additional measures are needed."
Pretty much every aspect of your life is subject to the collective will of the society in which you live. You cry, 'Freedom of speech!', and they're saying, 'Stop the spread of dangerous hate!'. Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
Right now, you're probably right. But when groups of malcontents are allowed to fester unchecked, they eventually cross the line from being bitter to being violent... and that's when the EU approach suddenly looks better.
So far as I know, nobody has figured out how to balance the two concerns in a way that makes everyone (or even most people) happy.
I'm usually reasonably happy with Canada's position, which is something like 'free speech until you're advocating harming people'. That tends to get Americans twisted up in knots, but it works for us, and we (as much as I can speak for all Canadians) don't feel like we're living under the constant surveillance of Big Brother's telescreens.
If you're wondering why the European Union (dominated by Germany) doesn't protect freedom of speech, blame the Nazis. And blame us.
Nah, in the US we use the strategy of having horrific levels of violence pretty much all the time, so we don't really overreact to individual mass killings.
It's kind of like making sure that your background radiation is high enough that you don't really mind an occasional meltdown.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Making something illegal doesn't stop it happening, it just causes it to happen in secret...
Those who are planning or advocating violence will still do so, but will now be harder to keep track of. Meanwhile others will be drawn to these illegal groups out of curiosity.
Educate people, allow everything out in the open and most people will reject dangerous ideologies anyway, and the few who don't will be easy to keep on top of.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
And who decides what counts as "advocating harming people"? Some people say that criticising a religion is hate speech which could lead to violence. What do you do when someone is sent to jail in Canada for simply saying something like "Islam is not a religion of peace"? Who censors the censor? etc. It's turtles all the way down...
By arresting and penalizing them only when they commit crimes and violence?
The American Slogan "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave"
This is because Free Speech and Freedom in general are dangerous things to have, and we need Bravery to deal with this constant danger.
However what has happened in the United States (and much of the world), we lost our bravery (on both sides of the political spectrum). We are afraid of Terrorist, Radicals, Racists, Minorities, Rich People, Poor People, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jewish.... So we are cowarding to our comfortable little corners of the world, and demanding protection from these bad ideas. This polarization increases fear, and there will be points where this fear will either lash out in escalating violence, or there will be some real Bravery, Courage and Leadership to reach out to these scary dangerous people and show that they are not so bad, and learn to disagree with a point of view, without fearing that point, and learning to accept and use use reason to help moderate the bad parts of our nature.
Until then, battle lines are being drawn, and if things don't get better there could be a Social war In America that would spread to Europe and the rest of the world, that would change the world power structure and perhaps put us into a dark ages. As the world economy would be tanked.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yea, that totally worked for the war on drugs.
And here you highlight the main danger of this kind of approach: even if you agree with banning hate speech in principle, you are inevitably going to end up in a situation where there is selective enforcement, and that gives far more power to the people who get to choose what to enforce than anyone should be comfortable with a select group wielding.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The whole "hate speech" crap is just a crying shame. Really, it's nothing but political censorship, because whoever is in charge gets to determine what viewpoints are hateful. Despite the European charter of human rights, Europe does not really believe in free speech. Really, the US doesn't either - look at the latest mess in Berkeley.
If and when we can, it is important to push back against this kind of censorship. No one makes you follow anyone on Twitter - so why would hateful opinions even bother you? On Facebook, if someone posts something you don't like, block them, or make your page private. Are so many people really such snowflakes that a few hateful words will destroy their world?
Really, it's kind of pathetic...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Pretty much every aspect of your life is subject to the collective will of the society in which you live.
This seems to be universally true - yet most people seem to have blinkered vision.
No one has a universal answer (and I doubt that one exists). Both the US and EU approaches have merits and both have drawbacks
US observers cry statism and slippery slope at the EU approaches.
They point out the democratic deficit in some structures (albeit with less corruption/bribery than campaign contributions in the US).
Non US observers point out that freedom of expression in the US is fine as long as you toe the party line.
They remember Joe MacCarthy
They point out how, for all the vaunted freedoms, the societal limitations placed upon anyone who happens to be black, gay, atheist, muslim, socialist....
Neither party comes out with much glory, both have an element of hypocrisy - yet both are much better than fundamentalist theocracies or single state tyrannies and we should celebrate that.
There's more in common than different and grandstanding, assuming moral superiority and slagging each other off doesn't help
publish only content we approve of, or we shut you down. That truly sounds like a formula in China and Russia right now: You publish what we tell you or we will fine you. Sounds a lot like: publish what we tell you, or we shut you down. The requests by the EU sound a lot like the regulatory systems in China where you have reps you report to to approve content. People may say it's for safety but "those who give up essential liberties for a little extra security deserve neither liberty nor security". In other words, there is always going to be some people who have an unpopular or sometimes even dangerous opinion, but if we suppress it being express even non-violently, we eliminate free thought, and when you have that, you have tyranny.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Your bullshit "hate speech" is nothing more then censorship.
Apparently you learnt NOTHING from (British) Political Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) to which this YouTuber beautifully summarized:
Gee, oh look, C. S. Lewis (Hey, look another smart British citizen!) said the SAME thing, except he called it Chronological Snobbery
Grow the fuck up EU already. Just maybe you should pay more attention to your history.
--
Only cowards censor.
Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
How many people do you think were killed by those 2 bombs? They weren't even the deadliest bombing runs of the war.
Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan? Seriously, check out Operation Downfall. For some perspective, Olympic estimated 766,700-815,548 personnel while Normandy landings had 156,000.
> 1) Free Speech from the American perspective isn't a universal perspective. It is unique to our circumstance and our history.
Bullshit. Did you completely fail British history ???
* Political Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) (British) ; On Liberty is summarized by this On Liberty of Thought and Discussion essay:
* C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) (British) Chronological Snobbery
> We can quibble over the details of where the line on free speech should be but you have to address how you plan to control hate groups if you let their rhetoric flow freely.
There IS no line. Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD.
Grow the fuck up, put your big boy pants on and learn that not everyone will agree with what you say. And thats OK. Because the opposite, censorship, is FAR, FAR, worse.
--
"Only Cowards Censor"
These companies should wait until the matter becomes a regulation, because only that can be contested in court. Legislation can also be contested in court, but not before it's subject to the whole parliamentary transparency process; which is what the commission (executive) is trying to avoid with these threats.
Those companies have already seen this a couple of times from various governments. It's all bluster; the commission can of course put pressure on them, but that's likely either inconsequential or outright illegal.
A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people.
We distrust the government because we do not think we are special and that the horrors of the past can happen here. What drives violence is that same in Europe as in the US because human nature. Sweeping offensive speech under the rug does not solve the problem. Outlawing offensive speech only perpetuates those that parade those believes because those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment.
Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. If you ban speech then you undermine the foundation of democracy. Free speech does not protect speech the majority thinks acceptable. It is for the controversial and offensive which has been historically the speech that has given us more freedom and more rights and more understanding of ourselves.
There is a price to every right. The more that people forget that - the more that the price will be paid in blood.
"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases." - Adolf Hitler
The issue here is something recent anti-white supremacist protesters need to take to heart. The principle of free speech is agnostic. You cannot claim to uphold free speech while simultaneously attempting to deny it to those you disagree with. Either you believe in free speech, even when that speech offends you. Or you believe in suppression of certain viewpoints and their expression. The latter puts you in the same category as China, Russia, and Nazi Germany - the only difference is which ideas you've decided to suppress.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The idea behind free speech is that you can't counter a negative with a negative. If you consider it to be justified to impose negative policies against ideas you consider to be negative, you are by definition justifying negative policies towards your ideas by those people if the tables are ever turned. After all, from their perspective, you have negative ideas and thus they are justified in imposing negative policies against you And all of society devolves into a self-perpetuating cycle of negativity.
Free speech attempts to break this cycle by saying everyone is allowed to have their say. And instead of actively fighting against the expression of ideas we don't like, we'll simply rely on rational people (who hopefully make up the overwhelming majority of the population) to judge and dismiss those ideas as ridiculous. The proper response to white supremacist propaganda is citing historical examples of where their beliefs have led the world in the past - innocents living (or hiding) in fear, mob lynchings of innocents, genocide, world war. Convince rational people that we don't want to go down that direction again.
That radical party also silenced opposing opinions. You know who's doing that now? Hint: it's not AFD.
The fact that you can overlook that is precisely how Nazis got a hold of the nation. When "the good guys" do bad things, people forgive or even defend them. After all, they're "the good guys" who will make everything better and will never abuse their power.
Freedom of speech applies to "radical parties" far from the current ruling party more than anything else. That's the entire point, really, the freedom to disagree with the rulers, plus the freedom to disagree with the "intellectuals" in charge of communist regimes.
Communists(or whatever the post-modernists call themselves these days) in the US are now staging violent protests against free speech, because it's anathema to draconic rule by self-described "intellectuals".
Whatever sort of party you fear, any party that objects to free speech is the worst choice.
Fundamentally, humans have two ways to resolve disputes: speech or violence. Which do you choose?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm sorry, but that's just hyperbole.
1) the EU is not banning speech or even offensive speech. They are banning speech that incites violence and terrorism
2) in the USA you do not have absolute freedom of speech so despite your hyperbole any argument is about where the line should be, not whether there is a line.
3) I would argue that privacy is just as important a right as speech. I don't have any evidence to back that up, but then neither do you. You're just spouting dogma.
LOL, if you thinks parts of London and Paris are not orders of magnitude more dangerous than any place in the US at night you are delusional.
I spent my college years in the UK walking to and from college every day, through the 'worst' slum in the country, widely acknowledged to have the highest rate of drug crime, gun crime, poverty and anything else they might try to measure to show how bad it was.
I spent the second half of my life in the US, where I have visited many US cities.
Strangely, despite all the alarming talk of how dangerous it might be, I was shot, mugged, hit and assaulted precisely zero times. It never happened. I never saw it happen.
People like to overstate the dangers. I assume that this is mere grandstanding. Saying any old shit because there's an audience.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Where did you get that from? Free speech is free speech. While no one is obligated to provide you a platform to speak from, people can freely talk about whatever they'd like, and as only the most offensive speech was ever in need of protection, that's what we're talking about. The freedom to speak (or otherwise express your thoughts).
If the government gets to label speech it doesn't like "hate speech" and suppress it, then the government has to power to suppress any and all speech. The excuse isn't the point: the suppression of speech is the point.
Again, conflict will be resolved by speech or by violence. I prefer speech. I also think my ideas are better, and feel no need to prevent my opponent from speaking - let him! The more nay idiot who disagrees with me speaks, the more he'll embarrass himself. Or, you know, the possibility exists that I'm wrong. But not about free speech - there's to much evidence from history that suppressing speech never fixes anything, merely shifts thins to violence earlier.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
From Wikipedia about the Nazi pre-war economy:
During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries: aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment. The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.[42] Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.[43] Albert Speer in his memoirs remarked that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground” among many Nazi party functionaries, warning that Germany’s industry was becoming “the framework for a state-socialist economic order.”[44] Earlier, Hitler had restated his economic intentions in a 1931 interview with Richard Breiting, singling out the 13 point plank of the National Socialist 25-point program, which he declared “demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism.”[45]
Nationalization of companies is typically a left-wing thing, not a right-wing thing. Nazi Germany had a decidedly left-wing tilt in terms of its economy - socialist, if you will.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!