Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Urges Internet Companies To Do More To Remove Extremist Content (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the not-enough dept.

Internet groups such as Facebook, Google's YouTube and Twitter need to do more to stem the proliferation of extremist content on their platforms, the European Commission said after a meeting on Wednesday. From a report: Social media companies have significantly boosted their resources to take down violent and extremist content as soon as possible in response to growing political pressure from European governments, particularly those hit by militant attacks in recent years. But Julian King, EU security commissioner, said that while a lot of progress had been made, additional efforts were needed. "We are not there yet. We are two years down the road of this journey: to reach our final destination we now need to speed up our work," King said in his closing speech at the third meeting of the EU Internet Forum, which brings together the Commission, EU member states, law enforcement and technology companies. The EU has said it will come forward with legislation next year if it is not satisfied with progress made by tech companies in removing extremist content, while a German online hate speech law comes into effect on Jan. 1.

79 comments

  1. Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Censoring people on a whim is an extreme stance.

    We should urge internet companies to do more to remove the EU from trying to do anything.

    1. Re:Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      a German online hate speech law comes into effect on Jan. 1.

      And heres a preview of what you can expect from this so-called "hate speech" law:

      A German politician has been sued for "racial incitement".

      What did he do? At a city council meeting, he read, out loud, 30 newspaper headlines from different newspapers, on crimes by Muslims and migrants.

    2. Re:Extremist Content by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Censoring people on a whim is an extreme stance.

      Yes, and IMO the EU is taking a nosedive right down the mass censorship hole. Deleting extremist content when its found is just a game of whack-a-mole that will never be won. Just ask the MPAA/RIAA how easy it is to do even when they have entire government agencies dedicated to their cause. But it's not just extremist content that is problematic, rather it's fake news and other bunk that become mainstream (name any anti-science movement of your choice: anti-vaccination, anti-gmo, etc.)

      The problem is echo chambers, plain and simple, but unfortunately there probably will never be an easy fix. The best that we could hope for, IMO, is for social media to change how it builds connections to people (facebook friends lists come to mind.)

    3. Re: Extremist Content by Monster_user · · Score: 2

      So basically the hate speech law takes away responsibility from citizens, and places yhe actions of citizens entirely the shoulders of content creators.

    4. Re:Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censoring people on a whim is an extreme stance.

      Yes, and IMO the EU is taking a nosedive right down the mass censorship hole.

      But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.

      Deleting extremist content when its found is just a game of whack-a-mole that will never be won.

      You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result. You keep doing it, just like you keep tossing the moles out of the garden.

      Just ask the MPAA/RIAA how easy it is to do even when they have entire government agencies dedicated to their cause.

      Nobody should have ever said doing the right thing was going to be easy. If they did, shame on them. Name them and I'll call them out.

      But it's not just extremist content that is problematic, rather it's fake news and other bunk that become mainstream (name any anti-science movement of your choice: anti-vaccination, anti-gmo, etc.)

      Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.

      The problem is echo chambers, plain and simple, but unfortunately there probably will never be an easy fix. The best that we could hope for, IMO, is for social media to change how it builds connections to people (facebook friends lists come to mind.)

      Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?

    5. Re: Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its about context, i could read all the headlines with the word fire out loud also.

    6. Re:Extremist Content by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.

      I know the post had a trollish tone to it, but that claim is not false. The EU is practically expecting social media to delete this content almost before it is even posted. Explain to me, how the fuck are you supposed to do that without acting on a whim?

      You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result.

      And how exactly is that supposed to work in this case?

      Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.

      No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.

      Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?

      We're speaking in the context of social media here, and yes, it pretty much comes down to echo chambers.

      When you're talking about the internet at large, then yes, you can expand well beyond that, including other media, like television.

    7. Re:Extremist Content by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Automation - every post is already structured text, and posts are submitted sequentially. The problem is simplified to one of traffic management and filtering. Excessive use is flagged and denied publication by default. New posts go into cache until inspected by both statistical word-count and linguistic algorithms for terrorism affiliated words and phrases, including using numbers and misspellings to obfuscate meanings. Social media networks are the internet press, so anyone using their systems for distribution is subject to publication rules

    8. Re:Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And heres [sic] a preview of what you can expect from this so-called "hate speech" law:

      Nope ... what is being alleged is old-fashioned Volkverhetzung, it has nothing to do with any "new law," not did it occur "on-line"

      A [far-right] German politician has been sued [voiceofeurope.com] for "racial incitement".

      What did he do? At a city council meeting, he read, out loud, 30 newspaper headlines from different newspapers, on crimes by Muslims and migrants.

      Why did he do that? Is that all he did? He didn't couch this as the result of migration or imply, that rather than being 30 individual cases, it was something for which millions of Muslims and migrants should be held responsible?

      It's just a little suspicious that none of those 30 headlines included any about native German offenders. One might be forgiven for believing he was trying to incite racial hatred. Oh look, he's from the AfD ... funny that.

    9. Re: Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically the hate speech law takes away responsibility from citizens, and places yhe actions of citizens entirely the shoulders of content creators.

      How do you take that away from case where an individual is being sued (but not under any new online hate speech law) for racial incitement?

    10. Re: Extremist Content by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.

      Alex Jones is a bad example. In a court case a while back he basically stated that none of the stuff he says should be taken seriously because he's just an actor playing a character.

      Now you can chock that down to just being a legal strategy to get him off the hook, but I think it's probably one of the only honest things he's ever said. I'm sure he believes some of the bullshit he spews, but I'm equally sure that there are a lot of things which he knows are bullshit but says them anyway because they play well with his fans.

    11. Re:Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.

      I know the post had a trollish tone to it, but that claim is not false.

      It is false, because it assumes that the EU's decisions are based on a whim, when instead, their meeting was documented and you can read the transcript yourself. Anything but a whim. It might not be what you desire, you might disagree with them, but being accurate in your criticisms is nonetheless important.

      The EU is practically expecting social media to delete this content almost before it is even posted. Explain to me, how the fuck are you supposed to do that without acting on a whim?

      I believe your understanding of the expectations of the EU are in error, but I'll focus one your understanding of what acting on a whim is, which is the root of the false claim. If you want to be bothered by concerns that the EU is expecting action that is overly hasty, or presumptuous, that is one thing, but that is not something properly described as acting on a whim.

      You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result.

      And how exactly is that supposed to work in this case?

      I believe you'll want to read the article or the EU's press release or the remarks by the commissioners.

      Right now, they are not entirely committed to a particular course of action, so I would not say they are in the position of having an "exact" methodology adopted. Which is fair, since they are endeavoring to proceed with deliberation.

      Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.

      No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.

      Alex Jones is a prime example of someone who by his own admission, isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful, so I wouldn't recommend him as a counter-example, but no, I wasn't saying they were necessarily such, let alone exclusively, I merely noted it as a quality they can possess on your mention of the subject.

      Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?

      We're speaking in the context of social media here, and yes, it pretty much comes down to echo chambers.

      I believe that's a mistaken myopia, as it doesn't get down to the foundation of the problem which extends beyond the context of social media.

      When you're talking about the internet at large, then yes, you can expand well beyond that, including other media, like television.

      Well, for me, it's not a matter of expansion, it's a matter of recognizing that this is nothing new under the sun.

    12. Re:Extremist Content by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Censorship, nominally aimed at protecting people from a problem, always ends up being used to shut down discussion of the problem.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Extremist Content by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result. You keep doing it, just like you keep tossing the moles out of the garden.

      You do it to lose a game you are losing even faster.

      Nobody should have ever said doing the right thing was going to be easy. If they did, shame on them. Name them and I'll call them out.

      The right thing according to your all knowing, all seeing self.

      Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.

      Congress and the president are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful. Is there a point here?

    14. Re: Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The guy has the wrong opinion, so it's ok to use the law to silence him!

    15. Re:Extremist Content by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Nancy Sinatra tweeted that "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad."

      Is that extremist? Should she be sanctioned?

      Kenneth Storey, a sociology professor, tweeted: “I dont believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them.”

      He lost his job for this "extremist" tweet.

      In an 8-page document, entitled "Settling Scores with Germany," and posted on the Internet, a radical Islamist, Abu Assad al-Almani, has called for bombings and assassinations in Germany after it emerged that the actor who plays Mohammed in the anti-Islam movie was allegedly German.

      Was the anti-Islam movie extremist or was the posting or both?

      Who decides what meets the requirements?

    16. Re:Extremist Content by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      And heres a preview of what you can expect from this so-called "hate speech" law:

      A German politician has been sued for "racial incitement".

      What did he do? At a city council meeting, he read, out loud, 30 newspaper headlines from different newspapers, on crimes by Muslims and migrants.

      Let me add a bit of context... first of all: anyone can sue anybody for anything. In that information is very little said if anyone actually did something or if it was forbidden to begin with.

      Then, the two politicians involved were of AfD and Die Linke parties which, oversimplified, is as close to nazi and communist party as you can get while still staying within the constitution. So neither the one guys provocations nor the other guys shouts for censorship were not on par what you would expect from them.

      And most important: none of this had to do with any existing, upcoming, or proposed laws.

      --
      bickerdyke
  2. And if they don't comply... by Z80a · · Score: 1

    Expect the EU panzer blitzkrieg by the morning.

  3. The typic of the one true house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone got the MLK quote about extremists?

  4. "Extremist"? by execthis · · Score: 2

    What is extremist? Another shit word that is deliberately indeterminate.

    Not wanting your country - your homeland - invaded by third-world savages is not extremist: It's extremely natural and healthy.

    1. Re:"Extremist"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is extremist?

      Video gamers.

    2. Re:"Extremist"? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What is extremist? Another shit word that is deliberately indeterminate.

      The whole "you can't define everything perfectly so therefore you can't define anything ever" is exactly the sort of bullshit snowflakery I'm sure you'd ocmplain bitterly about from people who have lots of things to say about pronouns.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:"Extremist"? by eepok · · Score: 1

      It's funny. The first part of your post is absolutely 100% rational. The vague use of a word that is re-definable per context for the purpose of restricting a fundamental human right (free speech) is too much and too far. I like the Supreme Court standard for restricting a fundamental right.:

      - The restriction must be justified by a compelling/necessary/crucial governmental interest
      == The compelling government interest would be to prevent the spread of prejudice and scapegoating akin to 1930s Germany. (Test Passed)

      - The restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
      == Requiring internet companies to scrub the existence of content of an indeterminate nature, location, etc. is not narrowly tailored. (Test Failed)

      - The restriction must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
      == I can probably think of lesser restrictive means of achieving the goal. Example: Create a system for "reporting and reacting" asking people to point out media online calling for the harming of another person or calling for the expulsion for any type of person. (Test Failed)

      So that's all well and good, but then you vomit out that prejudicial shit from your gob in the second part of your post. You break my heart, semi-rational person!

    4. Re:"Extremist"? by execthis · · Score: 1

      I see it the other way around. You are dangerously - catastrophically - semi rational. Caring about some free speech right but then not wanting to protect your homeland - something which leads to deprivation, injury, and even death of citizens - not to mention other things like environmental damage - is pathological. You are exemplifying perfectly that pathology that is afflicting the West, causing it to injure itself. No doubt you live an insularized life free from having to experience the consequences of the "humanitarianism" which you must claim to so strongly ascribe to. As long as it's someone else's blood that is spilled you can continue being a good liberal.

  5. America! Fuck yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For all its faults, the United States definitely got the unapologetic legal protection of speech mostly correct. Obscenity laws are not Constitutional and need to go, but that's a minor ding. Any country that does not have near-absolutist free speech protections enshrined in the law of the land is slowly shitting on its own citizens. Fuck the EU.

    1. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In practice the USA has plenty of restrictions on free speech: "intellectual property" laws, "classified" materials laws - not to mention nudity and explicit language.

    2. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      USA: the least free nation, except for all the rest!

    3. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      IP laws are pretty clearly delineated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution as a method of protecting against theft. Classified material is only illegal to leak out. Once it's out, you can't be prosecuted for repeating it. The absolutism really is an absolutism if phrased as, "You think it, you can say it unless you stole the words from someone else or are using them to direct physical violence."

    4. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      USA: the least free nation, except for all the rest!

      The USA: why the freest nation earth has more people in prison than any other nation.

      So free.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IP laws are pretty clearly delineated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution as a method of protecting against theft.

      And is commonly used to suppress undesired opinions. I don't really see how it is different from hate speech laws being used for things they aren't originally intended for. The end result is the same.
      You can't have both free speech and IP rights regardless of what the constitution say.
      Assuming that the constitution is infallible is a fallacy.

    6. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it sure is a shame that more crackheads and gangsters aren't free to roam the streets :(

    7. Re:America! Fuck yeah! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Define "commonly." A key tenet of our system of government is not absolute freedom, but rather near-absolute agency, government being established to protect my agency from yours. You have the freedom to swing your fist only up to where my nose begins, "governments are established by people to secure those rights;" and the like. Absolute freedom would imply the freedom to steal. That's anarchy. We don't have anarchy. We (aspire to) have the minimum amount of government to secure the maximum amount of freedom.

    8. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it sure is a shame that more crackheads and gangsters aren't free to roam the streets :(

      Always an excuse!

      Somehow other first world countries manage just fine without locking up half the population.

      You ain't free if you're in gaol!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re: America! Fuck yeah! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It's just a philosophical difference. Other nations prefer catch-and-release; they say it's more sporting. Whereas in the US they like to keep what they catch.

  6. The internet in China will soon be more free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon enough, you'll have more freedom using the Internet in China than in the EU. Most of the "Extremist" designation is politically biased. While there are some examples that 99% of people can agree with, they're used to leverage the politically motivated designations and erosion of political dissent.

  7. Destination censorship by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Informative

    Remember how well that spying and reporting worked out for all the Communist parties in 1980's Eastern Europe?

    Why is the EU and NATO doing everything it can to become the Stasi and Warsaw Pact?
    Why the need for SJW EU wide to use censorship on people reporting on the news in their EU communities?

    Big corporations and big EU government working together to ban people talking about wanting to exit the EU?
    From talking about the results of mass illegal immigration into the EU?

    So now the EU is going to spy on chats and comments? Report users to the police?
    Ban users accounts and conduct interviews at users place of work for comments online?

    People of faith and in cults don't trust mobile phones. They have a holy book of war and secure place deep in no go areas to communicate during worship.
    Undercover police are of no use in closed communities. The cell phone is not able to be turned into a live mic 24/7.
    Any random recording will need translation. Guess who the new translator is loyal too? Their faith not the security services.
    A book of war, barracks and a command and control structure hidden in plain sight as decades of "religious" practice deep in the EU.
    The NSA tried collect it all. Went back 4 hops from every one of interests. Global collect it all is great for no bid funding and contractor over time.

    If the police forces in Europe want to win learn from the UK mil, GCHQ, special forces and Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch.
    Keep mission secret and never talk to the police, lawyers, media, courts, telco's about methods.
    Define the enemy. Find out who is funding them. Find out where they have their support structure. Set up a new loyal police force to win.
    Track back the funding and stop it. The UK had to stop Irish support from within the USA reaching the UK. The UK operated in the USA until all US funding and political support stopped flowing to Ireland.
    Be more skilled than any other nations intelligence service and stop all the funding.
    Create a file on every interesting person. Then offer the interesting person a deal when alone. Sell out and become and informant. Not interested? Special forces move in.
    Keep doing that until most of the interesting people are informants.
    Also remember the people of faith will be doing decades of and generational counter surveillance on the EU, police, mil.
    They will try use the cover of virtue signalling political leadership opening the once secure police and security forces up to new "citizens"
    No background information is not a pathway to join the police, mil.
    The new citizens will remain loyal to their faith and collect all the information they can from any job in the gov, police, mil.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Destination censorship by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Go back under your rock, you damn ISIS advocates are disgusting!

    2. Re:Destination censorship by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Go back under your rock, you damn ISIS advocates are disgusting!

      Never understood appeal of ISIS over OSPF. Personally I would rather RIP than join the ranks of ISIS lusers.

  8. A neverending task by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is due to the definition of " extremist content " changing depending on who is currently in charge and where in the world you may reside.

    An ever shifting target is nigh impossible to hit.

    1. Re:A neverending task by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      An ever shifting target is nigh impossible to hit.

      But in this context, the political/ideological "collateral damage" is actually the primary goal.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:A neverending task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the Hell's Angels or Bandidos formed a political party, call it "American Freedom", that would suddenly gain over 10% of all State and Federal seats, how would you feel about it? I wouldn't mind myself, since I'm not from the same continent, but aren't those motorcycle gangs classified as criminal organizations in the US as well?

    3. Re:A neverending task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the Hell's Angels or Bandidos formed a political party, call it "American Freedom", that would suddenly gain over 10% of all State and Federal seats, how would you feel about it? I wouldn't mind myself, since I'm not from the same continent, but aren't those motorcycle gangs classified as criminal organizations in the US as well?

      Those gangs have been judged in a court of law under due process as being criminal racketeering organizations. Such criminal organizations and their members cannot legally register to appear on ballots nor hold public office. Criminal statutes already deal with this. Most of the problems in the US (like gun violence/illegal possession) are not due to a lack of laws but a lack of enforcement of existing laws and legal procedures/obligations. However, "We more-vigorously-enforced an existing law! isn't as campaign-speech-worthy as "We passed a law in response because we care!" Never mind that neither the old law nor the new one will be sufficiently enforced to give either of them any meaning.

  9. They usually mean anything that promotes violence by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    particularly against a particular group. In the US we have a thing called "Dog Whistling" where you say racist and violent things in an off handed manor. A senatorial candidate here (Roy Moore) just told his constituents all jews were going to hell but said it like so:

    "No matter how much money he’s got, he's still going to the same place that people who don't recognize God and morality and accept his salvation are going"

    To the casual listener it sounds like he said Soros was going to hell, but if you're an Evangelical you understand the sub-text is that all jews are going to hell. That's a dog whistle.

    Anyway, Europe doesn't tolerate dog whistling. You can't say things like what's above and not get censored. I'm on the fence with whether that's a good thing. They've got ample cause to be afraid of unregulated speech (what with the Nazi's coming out of Europe) and it's not as though the US doesn't regulate speech (shouting fire in a theater). There's a sci-fi book called Distractions by Bruce Sterling about how in the future you can assassinate just about anyone by planting the idea in some random kooks head. It doesn't sound too far from reality anymore. Especially in a country that can elect a man like Trump.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Democratic process by eegeerg · · Score: 1

    Technically, I disagree with statements such as Dimitris Avramopoulos: "It is feasible to reduce the time it takes to remove content to a few hours".

    Socially, I disagree with this proposal because it is suppression of free speech.

    But. I understand. Our society deserves better than paid griefers spewing propaganda to the lambs our human race. Paid propaganda means our least fortunate suffer. To advance, we need to ensure their protection. An informed democratic process where the benefit of society is valued over hand-picked corporate goals would be most welcome. This proposal (as far as I can understand from TFA) might suck, but we do need to address the problem of paid propaganda.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    -eegeerg

  11. It's the eu's way... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...because it's so much easier to expect others to clean up your shit, instead of facing the fact that it's your policies, your choices, your behavior as governments that are creating the conditions in which such people thrive and multiply.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:It's the eu's way... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Refugees are humans, with the same rights as all have. For a potential host nation, welcoming the refugees is the only process that results in their being integrated into and expanding the economy of the host nation. Camps by themselves with no outflow and no way out become cesspools inculcating the things that actually cause people to adopt terrorism as an approach to resolving their actual problems. Rather, vocational training and active camp security are required to combat that and funnel people into productive roles. Global warming will increase warfare and environmental decay which intensify migration, and the world has to adapt now.

  12. Extremist Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extremist content, as you will no doubt recall, is content that I do not like.

  13. To the contrary by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

    We need to give hate groups, no matter what end of the political spectrum they spawn from, all the access we can. Free advertising, daily interviews, the whole works. make sure every one hears it. Until they lose their air of mystery and defiance. Until every one sees them for what they are. Groups of bitter, scared power hungry monsters. Of course, stopping hate speech is never the aim of these laws. Not in the US, not in Europe. Control is.

    1. Re:To the contrary by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      No, they should all be treated as terrorist groups - their assets should be seized, bank accounts frozen, all revenue streams negated. Limited to their personal ability, they can act within the confines of the law. If crazy people rant on a corner then someone can directly remind them of their insanity, and if they obstruct the public then they will be removed by police.

  14. Re:They usually mean anything that promotes violen by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You regulate facts and you protect opinion and that is the way it works. What the EU is up too is clutching at straws because of the mess they have made in allowing mass immigration of cultures that most emphatically do not want to assimilate, they want to dominate, to control, they come from autocratic cultures, where they strong are fully entitled to dominate and control the weak. So now they have a real problem because those autocrat culture types are waking up the independent types and a real culture clash is forming or has formed and is now getting worse. Any kind of false flag trigger could set of the migrants to start willy nilly killing existing citizens in large numbers, a huge problem and one that will hang over their heads, until those who have no desire to assimilate are removed.

    Look at Sweden, it really demonstrates the reality of the problem of denial. They pretended to welcome in people in the past but they where never really welcomed, never really integrated, sort of just dumped in a region and politicians would turn up every now and again to provide lip service and no action. Any comment about this was systematically attacked and quite ruthlessly by the government, who felt if you just kept it silenced, kept it tamped down, it would just simple evaporate away. In reality it just festered and got worse and worse and in the most spectacularly blindly stupid fashion, after believing their own bullshit, they decide to pour massive amounts of fuel onto the existing fire. Swedes like to pretend they accept and integrate migrants but it ain't true, they are rejected and isolated within the country and having more makes it much worse, but the Swedes like the PR and got trapped in it, they are right fucked now. The Germans in the most stupid fashion then attempted to out do this stupidity and have now created a problem for the entire EU. I am not a racist but make no mistake I am a culturalist and have no shame in being so, fuck shitty cultures, isolate and kept them at a distance, a well protected distance, fuck wasting time, capital and our citizens lives on trying and failing to change their cultures and the only reason it happens in reality is so that multi-national corporations can steal resources from those ugly cultures.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  15. But what side effects of the cure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is such a thing as “extremist content” and it has and can have a very destructive influence. However, once we have good tools in place to mitigate its impact, then we have a readymade infrastructure for whoever happens to be in power to prevent a large section of the populous form seeing any information such persons find inconvenient or counter to their goals. And that is far more dangerous than any extremist content.

  16. World urges EU to grow a pair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ONLY outcome of censorship is erosion of government.

    1. Re:World urges EU to grow a pair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU will not grow a pair, they are gay as gay can be.

  17. Europe for Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe for Europeans(Ancestry). If our 'leaders' continue to betray the native population, the situation has nowhere to go but a conflagration that will cost millions, yes millions of lives.

    Every peoples/race deserves a homeland for self determination.

  18. Popular speech needs no protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

  19. Someone needs to urge the EU by Chas · · Score: 1

    To do more to remove extremists...

    Seriously. How many rape gangs, terror attacks, and all other manner of barbarity do people have to suffer through before these people who're incapable of living, civilly, in a first world nation are ejected (preferably from a helicopter)?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Someone needs to urge the EU by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Seriously. How many rape gangs, terror attacks, and all other manner of barbarity do people have to suffer through before these people who're incapable of living, civilly, in a first world nation are ejected (preferably from a helicopter)?

      "these people"?

      So, some people in the EU have done something you don't like so you reckon the EU should murder all of them?

      You do know some of the EU countries tried that before, right?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Someone needs to urge the EU by Chas · · Score: 1

      Did I say "all of them"?

      No.

      I carefully delineated serial rapists, terrorism perpetrators, etc.

      It's YOU who made the jump to "all of them".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:Someone needs to urge the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself, shitty sand monkey lover.

    4. Re:Someone needs to urge the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he just acknowledge that there is no perfect way to distinguish one from the other. That is why we have courts.

      If someone suggests a "simple" solution it is pretty clear that they are full of shit.

    5. Re:Someone needs to urge the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, those right wing terrorists all need to be ejected from their countries so the rest of the world can advance in peace without the rightards.

  20. Cato the New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam !

  21. Removal isn't the best solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Removal would drive them underground and make it harder to monitor them. It's better to keep your enemies where they can be seen.

  22. What are "militant attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is "extremist"?
    Islam can be demolished by free speech, which is why Islam is totally against free speech, in the most violent way possible - if you speak out against Islam, you are killed. That is the only reason Islam still exists. 99% of muslims were born into Islam (i.e. brainwashed and threatened by their parents), they didn't convert to it.

    If it becomes possible to leave Islam without being killed, Islam will collapse.

    1. Re:What are "militant attacks"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny is that you can replace "Islam" with "Christianity" and it makes much more sense!

  23. This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe all the DNC content can finally be scrubbed from the Net.

    1. Re:This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and RNC content as well.

  24. Cloudflare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cloudflare, and their CEO, will come to regret 'taking a stance.'

    You've let the genie out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in. And let us not kid ourselves: it's not a slippery slope, it's a damned cliff. Bear in mind that many of these EU countries have laws that expressly prohibit publishing certain information--such as crime statistics by racial, ethnic, or religious makeup.

  25. Already doing it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google already censors about 75 percent of what its bot's intake pipes put into the raw tanks - because it's pure sewage. Just ask anybody who's ever run a search engine. It's why nobody else does it really.

  26. Re:They usually mean anything that promotes violen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The culture thing is very difficult. Cultures that do not assimilate can "work" in their own cultural environment, but the kind of savage cultures that you describe only end up overpowering others, because they see acts of kindness as weakness. Also there are many distinct levels at play here: The big picture becomes blurry, because at the individual level there seldom is any active hostility, just people living (and enforcing) their separate realities.

  27. So, as long as YOUR people get to define it by mpercy · · Score: 1

    It's ok. No one in their right mind would disagree with YOUR assessment of whether something is "extremist", or "hate speech".

    Got it.

  28. Re:They usually mean anything that promotes violen by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Isn't this post a dog-whistle calling for the extermination of Evangelicals?

    You also disparaged 60M American who voted for Trump.

    And you tied both Evangelicals and Trump voters to Nazis by juxtaposition.

    This post will have to be censored.

  29. Re:They usually mean anything that promotes violen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've clearly never been to any foreign country, much less outside your county line, son. In the real world we have to accept reality, we can't live by the fevered imaginations of those who would exploit you to further line their pockets. You are spouting hilariously easy to debunk propaganda, and it is every person's duty to shame you into submission so you stop empowering the bullshit you pretend is true.

  30. but King speech about terrorists content by JanneGranström · · Score: 1

    Just read this from the King site: https://ec.europa.eu/commissio... i dont get where reuters get that hate speech law thing.. propaganda, thats for sure.

  31. Re:They usually mean anything that promotes violen by execthis · · Score: 1

    It's funny because you're calling Judge Moore's statement dog whistling is itself a straw dog attack. You accuse him of making a loaded statement, something which cannot ever really be refuted, so you have the perfect attack against him. I think that's how mainstream media also plays it's constant mind games on people by claiming that something is *really* something else. Attacks like that are based on belief and cannot be refuted because at that point relying upon the actual meaning of words themselves has been abandoned. In all, I think it's complete BS.

    Fortunately people are now fully aware of how words become weaponized and used at attack vectors against rational thinking and factual reality.

  32. "Extremist" as in Cowboy Neal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can still access Slashdot in most parts of the EU. If that site doesn't count as extremist, I wonder what they mean.