Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

44 of 79 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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;
    8. 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?

    9. 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!

    10. 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?

    11. 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. "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 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.
    2. 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!

    3. 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.

  4. 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 c6gunner · · Score: 1

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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/
  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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!!!
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.