Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years (inverse.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: After a question from Senator John Thune (R-SD) about why the public should believe that Facebook was earnestly working towards improving privacy, Zuckerberg essentially responded by saying that things are different now. Zuckerberg said that the platform is going through a "broad philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company." "We need to now take a more proactive view at policing the ecosystem," he said. In part, Zuckerberg was talking about hate speech and the various ways his platform has been used to seed misinformation. This prompted Thune to ask what steps Facebook was taking to improve its ability to define what is and what is not hate speech.

"Hate speech is one of the hardest," Zuckerberg said. "Determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. You need to understand what is a slur and whether something is hateful, and not just in English..." Zuckerberg said that the company is increasingly developing AI tools to flag hate speech proactively, rather than relying on reactions from users and employees to flag offensive content. But according to the CEO, because flagging hate speech is so complex, he estimates it could take five to 10 years to create adequate A.I. "Today we're just not there on that," he said. For now, Zuckerberg said, it's still on users to flag offensive content. "We have people look at it, we have policies to try and make it as not subjective as possible, but until we get it more automated there is a higher error rate than I'm happy with," he said.

Comments

Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there such an emphasis on this as opposed to any other type of "bad" speech? What makes hate speech inherently worse than offensive, but non-hateful speech, and how do you know if I hate you or not?

Re:Hate Speech

[ArmoredDragon]

It won't. I've seen video games ban the word "jew" simply because somebody decided that a word filter was needed because the word is often used pejoratively. I found out recently I'm 2% Ashkenazi jew, and I wouldn't be surprised if some AI caught the word "nazi jew" out of that. Worse, is that hate speech is a constantly evolving thing, and the words and double-speak deliberately change on a routine basis. This is why hate speech rules are so fucking stupid: Since they're going after a constantly moving target, it's impossible to legislate or filter without making deliberately vague rules, and you can easily break said rules without realizing it at all. And how can you be expected to know that something is illegal when there isn't even a written law against it?

This gives the government plenty of room to get away with abuse. If you don't already have a reason to arrest somebody, you can just create one on the spot. The UK already does this.

Re:Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be termed politically desanctioned speech (politically incorrect speech being the sloppy cousin) where you are not protected by free speech laws, but originally, hate speech was a exacerbating condition that made "hate crimes" worse. It was not a thing unto itself. Of course, it has morphed into a thing by itself because no one remembers the original purpose. For example, vandalism is a crime, but not necessarily a hate crime. What makes it a hate crime, worse than a regular instance of vandalism is "hate speech" or the motive behind the crime. The Supreme Court has ruled this is not protected by the first amendment because you lose your first amendment protections by committing the underlying crime. This was a dubious ruling, but hasn't been revisited. Of course, it's hard to commit vandalism online unless you are a hacker, but easy to invoke "hate speech", so everyone wants that policed despite there being no underlying crime. Of course, you aren't protected by the first amendment because the courts have not ruled that FB or Google hangouts or whatever are "places of public accommodation". The ACLU used to fight for expansion of the definition of public accommodation, and FB would probably fit the bill, but they have taken it upon themselves to police "hate speech" instead. Of course, politicians would love all this to be policed so they can pressure FB and Google to stamp out political speech they don't like either, and advertisers would love it stamped out so they can't be tagged with boycotts and the like, but if malls have to put up with free speech, then FB probably should too.

Re:Hate Speech

[ArmoredDragon]

Only on slashdot is pedantry a good excuse to invalidate the argument being made.

Well played.

Re:Hate Speech

[Z80a]

"hey bro, some idiot called me a n*gger other day, can you believe that?"
(something you can't even post at full on slashdot)

Re:Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The day they tried to tell me that "Person of Color" was the current PC orthodoxy while "Colored Person" was still one step away from "Ni**er*" was the day I stopped listening to them completely.

Re:Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not pedantry, it's actual knowledge of genetics that invalidates your entire point because you're just feigning a false association with your purported heritage to try to make some contrived argumentation about automated filters.

You would have done much better to mention therapists. Then you wouldn't be trying to make yourself a part of the issue in a misbegotten sense of hubris that you should have realized only made you look bad.

Re:Hate Speech

[ArmoredDragon]

That number is rounded, but it doesn't matter because you're being retarded. You're never actually 50% of anything, let alone 25% or 12.5%. Sure, parent and child actually share 50% on *average*, but in reality, this is rarely the case. In reality, the further down in successive generations you go, the percentage of shared DNA diverges greater from simple math like that. So saying "you're 6 generations away at that amount" is a pretty dumb assumption to make. I understand why this wouldn't make any sense to you. After all, in your family the shared DNA percentage increases every successive generation, so it goes against your intuition.

Besides, I've actually figured out where it came from, so even if that exact number is wrong (which it probably is,) it still has a basis in fact.

Re:Hate Speech

[datavirtue]

" But according to the CEO, because flagging hate speech is so complex, he estimates it could take five to 10 years to create adequate A.I.

This is either a Bill Gates "640k is all you will ever need" moment or this is trotted out there to make predictive analytics seem like they are far away in the future. A team of two could probably flag hate speech at Facebook with a few days work--if you are naive enough to think they don't already have models running in production.

Re: Hate Speech

[Alypius]

Berke Breathed had a great "Bloom County" comic back in 1988 about this. "People of color?" "People of color." "Colored people." "NO, Ma!"

Re: Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

Epithets aside, you seem to take a more absolute approach to limitations on rights and 'argue' your position by exaggeration - equating any limitation on speech with 'burning' someone. You don't address the other examples of limitations to speech that I provided - I'm not sure if that's because you consider that they, too, are equivalent to burning someone or whether your eagerness to share your opinion on one part of what I said overwhelmed your reason and compelled you to act immediately.

Not sure if impassioned or simply simple. Well trolled. Very Poe's Law.

Re:Hate Speech

[BeauHD ( 6, Expert)]

Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years

What Zuckerberg will likely be "curbing" and what Facebook tends to ban:

- claims that racism is not the primary cause of poverty and criminality in minority communities
- pointing out that gender is not a social construct
- using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person
- rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
- speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
- speech critical or disapproving of Islam
- anything containing derogatory words for progressive protected classes (but not derogatory words for straight white males)

Of course, the net effect will be that Facebook turns even more into a progressive bubble. And while that may be comforting to progressives, it makes it hard for them to understand why their favorite political candidates or policies don't catch on among Americans in general.

Re:Hate Speech

[UnknownSoldier]

/sarcasm Considering you are nagging about it, yeah, you are a nagger.

Re:Hate Speech

[UnknownSoldier]

Banning "hate speech" is censorship. PERIOD.

If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space" and the 1st amendment should take precedent.

But, no, let's target some bullshit inanimate object, "hate speech", in a knee-jerk reaction to the symptom instead of treating the cause.

Re:Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

It's totalitarian, despotic, and unacceptable.

Marxists/leftists/commies/progressives/whatever who demand that we give up our rights to achieve their cause-de-jour will simply move the goalposts and demand more. The only logical response to their demands is to stand firm and give NO quarter.

Re:Hate Speech

[NicknameUnavailable]

23andme and Ancestry are both on public record stating they routinely add 1-15% of some minority to everyone's results just to screw with potential racists.

Re: Hate Speech

[Defakto]

You must not go to reddit much.

Re:Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space"

Why 'should' it? The courts have ruled, repeatedly, that private property is private even when open to the public. Protestors have been asked to leave public malls because the mall is privately owned. You want the constitution to apply to the right to speech, but want the rights of private property to be weakened. Interesting position.

Banning "hate speech" is censorship.

Yes. It is. Where do you stand on libel, slander, false advertising, false listing of ingredients in food, perjury, etc.?

Re:Hate Speech

[Z80a]

The same neural networks that are supposed to translate from a language to other without flaws?

Re: Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither company has ever said anything remotely like that. You're literally just making shit up, you fucking imbecile.

Re: Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a whole lot of fancy lawyer tap dancing bullshit to say that you really are fine with destroying personal liberty in some stupid exchange for an idealistic high five. Next time speak plainly. You sound like a fag.

Re:Hate Speech

[radja]

there are worse things (at least according to facebook): Nudity

Re: Hate Speech

[Kiuas]

What a retarded definition. I want to hurt you based on what you said, so you must have been hate speaking?

You shouldn't be throwing the word retard around when you clearly don't know how to read. What he said:

Hate speech is the one which make the reader consider illegal actions against a group of some persuasion or inheritance. It might not contain a single offensive word but still fill the reader or listener with anger towards its target.

That's not the same as 'if you said something that makes me want to hurt you you're engaging in hate speech', in fact that miles from it. What he said is that it's possible to rile hatred against a group of people without outright saying stuff like 'Members of [group X] are all subhuman and deserve to have their rights taken away/assaulted/killed/whatever". In fact the vast majority of hate speech works like this, and has always worked liked this. You take a racial/ethnic/religious/political group and then you make statements like: "Members of [group X] are all [criminals/dangerous/against western values]" and you use those kinds of arguments to instill fear and hatred in people against said group. Look at the way 'race theory' developed a few centuries back and how it's since been used (and still is used by some). It was propagated by this notion that they're being 'objective' and that it's simply a fact that certain races are inferior to the others, which was then used as a handy justification for not granting equal rights to these people. Looking at slavery for example, the argument was never presented as 'Enslavement of Africans is alright because we should hate them", rather it was wrapped in pseudo-scientific argument of: 'The africans are less intelligent and less capable and more violent than us, so therefore slavery is the natural order of things."

Looking at more recent examples this is the way all ethnic cleansings have always been prepared. The third reich did not arise out of a democratic platform where the guys just yelled: 'Kill all the jews!" and got widespread support. That was preceded by a years long propaganda campaign which painted the jews as criminals that seek to undermine the society. And as the mastermind behind the propaganda machine (Göring) said of this tactic during the trials: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This is still the modus operandi of groups that wish to stoke hatred between no matter where they come from or what their motivations are: it's never 'we should all hate/kill [members of the opposing group(s)] just because we should hate them', but 'We're just spreading around facts about the [opposing group(s) are being dangerous, we're being objective here!"

Even with false advertising there are fringe cases and cases wherein even obvious false advertising is still not a crime because the internet allows people and companies to loop around the laws. For example: it's illegal to advertise a homeopathic 'medicine' as being effective against cancer, because homeopathic 'medicines' are just water and there's no scientific backing to support them being effective. However it's not illegal for someone to write a blog post about how they personally think these 'medicines' cure cancer and then promote that post on say Facebook because the 'product' being promoted is not the pills themselves, but an opinion piece about the pills. Still the effective end result for the consumer that sees the promoted post is the same: they're left with a misleading picture of what the product does and may be fooled into buying it under false assumptions.

Now I don't think it should be illegal for anyone to write such opinions, but just as I'd support facebook curbing the spreading of pseudo-scientific nonsense like homeopathy or

Re:Hate Speech

[danbert8]

Yeah, that is totally incorrect. My results show that I am 99.8% European with 0.1% unknown and 0.1% broadly African.

Re:Hate Speech

[mjwx]

Only on slashdot is pedantry a good excuse to invalidate the argument being made.

Well played.

At the risk of being ironic... That behaviour is actually commonplace on forums, especially within the Anglosphere. I've lost count of the number of times some people cant get over a typo or misplaced word, let alone be able to read a sentence and understand the meaning in context which may be different to the strict dictionary definitions (this is extremely common when quoting translated texts where words don't strictly share the same meanings in English).

Re:Hate Speech

[stealth_finger]

I found out recently I'm 2% Ashkenazi jew, and I wouldn't be surprised if some AI caught the word "nazi jew" out of that.

Does that mean Scunthorpe is going to be purged from the internet?

Re:Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that you're a black man.

Re:Hate Speech

[geoscodin]

Possibly a made up stat, but also possible he simply rounded up to 2%

Re: Hate Speech

[reanjr]

Using the good science, but implementing it with bad tech, does not mean you will come up with good results. None of the major DNA testers have demonstrated efficacy in such things, and each test will provide completely different ancestral results. Maybe it's junk science, maybe it's junk tech, but it's definitely junk.

Re:Hate Speech

[Lord Kano]

Don't forget
- anything in support of private citizens being "allowed" to own the kinds of firearms they currently own.

LK

Re: Hate Speech

[reanjr]

An effective and benevolent dictator is a totalitarian but he is not a despot. A weak and evil dictator is a despot, but not a totalitarian.

Re:Hate Speech

[KingBenny]

clearly you can't say ***sasination i had two pictures or art/street art removed recently with a community guidelines warning, one is two hands shaking hands with guns for hands and the other is a really obses woman and an anorexic woman shouting at each other ... a.i. sucks at these thing , meanwhile my avatar can say fuck because its a jpeg file and the terrorist hate that kills people by speaking the word isn't even noticed by any kind of current a.i. on top of that making promises on 5 to 10 years in something like tek is utter bs ... the way its going they might kick marky mark out way before that. The dude never should have gone public and staid on top of his little billions empire but its never enough is it ?
leaving out the question why banning anything but goodspeak is supposed to arm people mentally against trolls
i call bs and dibs on the second bs and then some more bs lol, pc-principles are out of hand, like copyright trolls, if instead everyone gets to say what they want you can point out the nests right away, cos otherwise they go dark and whats more a fourletter word is nothing but that until someone start paying so much attention to it that it becomes a prayer or a curse. And you're totally right the last one too, it's just an open door for censorship because i'm offended by this, you're offended by that, the state's offended by whatever gets votes and the company is offended by whatever offends the largest profit niche
four times bs called is a charm plus one then. I think its best to say what you want because in seven billion people there's always going to be someone offended and how is the a.i. supposed to weed out white people using n-words against black people calling eachother nugger (cos thats funny) or homosexuals calling eachother fag or dyke (cos its a thing) ?

Re: Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Those kids never would have survived my school. If you only carried an AK-47 with100 rounds, , you were considered to be unarmed.

Recommendation was an FN, with 10,000 rounds, and either an AK-47 or a pair of H&Ks with 1,000 rounds. As soon as the terrorists realized that they were facing armed kids, attacks on schools dropped to zero.

Re: Hate Speech

[cyberchondriac]

Exactly. It's just an endless chasing of tails. In the late 19th century, "moron" and "idiot" were professionally used to describe people of very low IQs. That came to be used pejoratively so it was deemed to be kinder to say these people were "mentally retarded", retard simply meaning slowed. Of course, "retard" became an insult, so a new term was coined again, "mentally handicapped". The 90's comedy show In Living Color made fun of that with the recurring character, "HandiMan", featuring a retarded superhero, showing it made no difference. Next came the term, "mentally challenged". That's next to fall if it hasn't already. It'll never end. Words only mean whatever meaning we assign to them.

Re: Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Ingram retweeting an article about a kid not getting into college before the fact of his look at poor me sjw pandering? Odds are if dude reapplied to those schools he'd immediately be accepted vs. just using academic merit the first time. Your argument is trash. Tell me why those kids are now experts that we all should listen to on the second amendment for the United States Constitution. Where have they attained this level of understanding above the rest of the country?

Re:Hate Speech

[Dread_ed]

100% human breeds with 100% human, generation after generation, and now someone thinks they are 50% this and 25% that, and so on?

This is the most ridiculously stupid concept I have ever seen you intergalactically backwards humans ever put forth in your already vast constellation of stunningly vapid intentional misconceptions of reality. When you ultimately wipe yourselves from the achingly beautiful paradise planet you were born onto because you are so monstrously bereft of intelligence you cannot recognize your own kin, the rest of the universe will rejoice for the rest of all eternity.

Hasten the day, you inept failure of a species, hasten the day.

Re:Hate Speech

[rhazz]

Good point. Also the ridiculous things that can be considered racism these days is boggling. Any AI that could properly figure that out would be batshit insane.

Re: Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

And I included several examples that aren't so readily defined, objectively - libel/slander. There are others, but the point of providing a couple of examples is to cover a range, not define an exhaustive list. In your haste to insult, you seem to have missed these. Perhaps they were more difficult to answer.

I state, again, that there already exist limitations on speech that cover a range of definitions and types (depending on state, country and history). Hate speech is new. It's poorly defined. The response to try to limit it is overreaching and untimely. None of which mean that the principle of recognising that some speech is harmful and seeking to limit that speech is novel nor signifies the loss of the base right.

Thank you for the time you took to reply. I hope that your life improves to the point where you no longer need to insult strangers that disagree with you.

Re: Hate Speech

[NicknameUnavailable]

A simple Google search would show you're an ignorant moron.

Re: Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

Nicely expressed. Thank you

Re: Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

Hmm, one line, swearing and only reading what they want to see. Seems like I've attracted someone's attention.

destroying personal liberty

Exaggeration, then attacking the exaggeration. Strawman.

Most (all?) rights admit some limitation when those that claim them wish to live with others who also have rights.
The right to free speech has many limitations that seek to eliminate the harm to others that certain types of speech can cause.
Whether you believe 'hate speech' is well defined, or not (I don't); whether you think bans and attempts to eliminate it are possible, useful or well implemented (only with difficulty, of limited utility and being applied in an uneven fashion that has more to do with being seen to do something than utility) has _nothing_ to do with;

a) a private company banning users for breach of terms (no matter that those terms are poorly defined) is not censorship (wrt the 1st amendment) even though it is used by the public

b) is not the destruction of the right to free speech; it is another limitation of a similar kind to other limitations

I look forward to you skimming this and responding with an single line insult.
I expect you think it's an edgy way of proving a point about free speech or something.

Re:Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

I argued the points as stated. There's so much that's being read into what I wrote that the reply borders on nonsensical.

The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.

I'd argue that it is the uneven application of law that is the first, but then that's less catchy, isn't it?

In any case, you're asserting that limiting 'hate speech' is the denial of free speech - essentially arguing that any limitation or diminishment of the right is the loss of the right as a whole. You completely ignore that free speech has many existing limitations, even in the US, and that more broadly (almost?) all rights are limited when you wish to live with others who have rights.

And it's ALWAYS coming from the Left

Oh FFS, I'm not from the US. Please leave me out of your peculiar tribalistic membership drama. Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative - they are all labels and, frankly, are a tool the plutocrats use to keep useful idiots engaged. Take your dogma and stuff it. If you want to debate the point, I'm more than happy. If all you have is invective aimed at someone you imaging to be something you've invented, then you're living in a kind of hell I want nothing to do with.

Re:Hate Speech

[penandpaper]

you're asserting that limiting 'hate speech' is the denial of free speech - essentially arguing that any limitation or diminishment of the right is the loss of the right as a whole

Yes. Because the law cannot accurately describe subjectivity through which "hate speech" is routinely and only able to be defined properly in the context of law. It is an ever changing thing that can be expanded ad hoc whose meaning will be divorced from any layman subjected to the whims of government interpretations.

If you have subjective limitations on a right then that right is effectively null because it becomes a privilege of the government to take away by its own discretion and interpretation. It no longer is a fundamental unalienable right that you are born with.

You completely ignore that free speech has many existing limitations

You are misunderstanding those limitations that have historical common law precedent for good reasons as compared to subjective thought crime. Any existing limitation on speech comes down to harm. Libel, credible threats, defamation, etc. all can damage another persons rights, property, and liberty. It requires a person to respond to defend themselves. Hate speech doesn't have that kind of harm. A racist can be a racist that doesn't cause harm to anyone even if they express their racist views. It doesn't require anyone to respond to defend their rights, property, and liberty. Racism requires action to take away the rights, property, and liberty of anyone. That action is already illegal in all circumstances.

all rights are limited when you wish to live with others who have rights.

No. You are uninhibitedly free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. Speech has very limited capacity to infringe on rights in and of itself. That limited capacity is where you see those limitations such as libel and credible threats. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are an attempt to protect those inalienable rights that you are born with. They do not come from government and it is the role of government to protect those rights not to take them away because you are subjectively offended.

hey are all labels and, frankly, are a tool the plutocrats use to keep useful idiots

All of language is a label so that we can properly understand each other. You are blind if you cannot see the philosophical differences of "left" and "right". You and I have a fundamental philosophical different understanding of rights and the role of government and that difference will impact our voting behavior. It may look tribal because in some respects it is. Those plutocrats are elected by people who chose them to be the plutocrat to represent them in the halls of power.

Re: Hate Speech

[Jesus H Rolle]

It's just an endless chasing of tails.

Steven Pinker calls it the "euphemism treadmill." I call Pinker a mad coke fiend.

Re:Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

It no longer is a fundamental unalienable right that you are born with.

I think that we are coming down to an argument about whether or not there exists such a thing as a 'natural right' or whether all rights are 'legal rights'.
In short, I tend to fall more to the side that does not believe that natural rights exist; that all rights are 'legal' rights and it seems that you believe that there exists a distinction. We may need to simply observe that we disagree as I think that trying to examine this more fully is well outside the scope of this discussion.

You are misunderstanding those limitations that have historical common law precedent for good reasons as compared to subjective thought crime.

I'm not sure I see how. You assert that a subjective limitation on a right makes that right null.
I argue that things like slander, libel, sedition etc. are examples of limitations that are subjective.
You observe that these are defined by a history of common law. I agree. The courts provide interpretation on areas of silence or ambiguity with respect to statutory law and build a body of common law. However, I don't see how any amount of precedent can make something that is subjective, objective. It may provide a solid framework, it may provide a guide or help define something, but it is still a matter of interpretation. To that extent, the difference I see between 'hate speech' and the other examples is not one of subjective/objective, but that 'hate speech' is much newer, still poorly defined, often has overly broad legislation that attempts to address it (where it exist at all) and has had insufficient time to develop the sort of body of rulings and decisions that go into making common law.

It is an ever changing thing that can be expanded ad hoc whose meaning will be divorced from any layman subjected to the whims of government interpretations.

You mention common law when I raise the issue of what I see as existing subjective limitations on free speech. The courts are a part of the government in most modern democracies. The 'whims' of the government are distributed, constrained and limited. Power is distributed with some portions handled by the legislature, other parts by the courts. The law around something like 'libel' or 'hate speech' is just as subject to these 'whims'.

I put it to you that you argue 'government' as a tyrannical and singular entity that can change the definition of 'hate speech' on a "whim", yet you seem not to recognise that same 'government' in the courts that produce and interpret common law.

Any existing limitation on speech comes down to harm.

I agree wholeheartedly. The only limitations that we should allow on any right is because it causes harm - including the harm of limiting someone else's rights.

Hate speech doesn't have that kind of harm

May I suggest that you have a look at things like Words that wound : critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment. I've only read extracts, but it attempts to define things like racist and hate speech in a way that is compatible with recognising the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Importantly (to this discussion) it compares the harm caused by things like defamation and fraud to racist verbal assault.

There have been studies that have shown that things like the gap in math ability in children based on gender has a significant cultural component - 'boys are better at maths'. Being immersed in racist statements have similar negative outcomes for those raised in that environment.

We've seen reports of Facebook being used to whip people into a murderous fury; of twitter being used to influence elections. Why is it so hard to believe that as social animals the more we hear a certain message, the more ubiquitous it becomes, the more frequent then the more li

Re:Hate Speech

[penandpaper]

I argue that things like slander, libel, sedition etc. are examples of limitations that are subjective.

I disagree. The basis of hate speech is offense which is a subjective thing. Everyone has different points at which they take offense. Is Count Dankula's pug doing nazi solute "grossly offensive"? I think to most people, no. But to the prosecutor and judge, it is. Libel, slander, threats, etc. Have objective definitions that we all can understand and it doesn't require us to subjectively quantify anything like "offense". Saying "You are a pedophile.". Clearly damages your reputation, may initiate legal investigations, ruin your career, etc. There is nothing subjective about understanding that libelous statement and why it isn't allowed. Compared that to, the Fourteen Words. If you are not white, your reputation isn't damage. The police are not going to start investigating you. Your career won't be ruined. No harm is caused until there is an action to follow. That is the fundamental difference.

that you argue 'government' as a tyrannical and singular entity that can change the definition of 'hate speech' on a "whim", yet you seem not to recognise that same 'government' in the courts that produce and interpret common law

I am not arguing that government is a singular entity of tyranny. I am arguing that government is made of people and people can be tyrannical even in distributed levels of power. The whole point of checks and balances (distributed power) is recognize that humans are flawed creatures and that when given the chance can and will abuse others. Common law took trial and error to find certain boundaries of legalities. The 2nd, for example, has historical precedent to the 1689 Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean that the right ascribed were correct by being limited to Protestants. Yet, we can understand the forethought of such a right in the context of a different age. If we recognize we are no different than our forefathers than the lessons they learned will help us create a better future just as they left us with a good future. Too often I hear people dismiss history because "they are different". They understand the world better. They can do it right this time. The current infatuation with hate speech is people forgetting history and thinking they are different because of Twitter. Social media does not change human nature. It does not change the conditions for tyranny to win over liberty.

Words that wound

I am not going to respond to all of your post but this really bugs me. Words that wound AKA speech is violence. That is unadulterated bullshit. Sure, they can have an impact. Of course social media can influence an election just like the printing press. But if you, as an adult, cannot overcome mean words then you are no more mature than a child. Censoring anything because "speech is violence" is a childs response. Being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others which includes you getting over mean words and ideas. This line of reasoning amounts to. "He called me mean names. I am crying because he called me mean names. I was violently attacked as evident by my crying. Jail him!". It is not appropriate for society to behave as a child to coddle the feelings of every delicate snowflake. Science can offend people therefore science is violence. Should we censor science too?

Douglas Adams

If you don't like the choice of lizards run for office. Stop expecting anyone else to solve your problems when you have the power to do it yourself.
 

Re: Hate Speech

[UnknownSoldier]

> ... you blithering fucking imbecile.

Stay classy!

Re:Hate Speech

[david_thornley]

Perhaps hate speech is against the Terms of Service. Facebook is a private corporation. I keep hearing from some free-market types that a corporation has no social obligations, so in at least some people's opinion Facebook can have their own Terms of Service and allow and disallow what they like.

If you don't like how Facebook runs things, start your own internet forum. If Facebook offends enough people, it could fall out of favor pretty fast.

Re:Hate Speech

[david_thornley]

This is pretty normal for language use. Words and ideas tend to be fuzzy clusters. There's speech that's definitely not hate speech, and speech that definitely is (for any halfway reasonable definition of hate speech, bearing in mind that it isn't a legal category in the US). There's speech that reasonable people could disagree on. With respect to sexual harassment, at least, there's complications. A man might say something a teeny bit off in the direction of harassment, a momentary irritation, nothing more, not worth mentioning. If twenty men say the same thing, it starts feeling pretty hostile. Is that sexual harassment?

Wittgenstein asked about the idea of a "game". Can you define it? Bear in mind that it must cover baseball, role-playing games, board games, solitaire, the Great Game (the conflict between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan in the 19th century), psychological games people play on each other, and probably some stuff I missed. It's hard enough finding anything in common. Role-playing games don't have winners or losers. Solitaire has one player. The Great Game was not for fun, and neither are some of the psychological games. And, yet, I can say with confidence that chess is a game, and filling out my income taxes is not a game.

Re:Hate Speech

[another_twilight]

The basis of hate speech is offense which is a subjective thing.

Only because you refuse to acknowledge that 'hate speech' is more than just being offended. Being thrown out of a bar for shouting things the owner doesn't like is the same as Facebook banning you for posting offensive comments. Both are private parties refusing service for violation of terms of said service. While either may mention 'hate speech' as a reason, it's not the same as the government limiting the right to free speech through statue, legislation and common law.

You claim that 'hate speech' does no harm. Most modern democracies have laws that limit or prohibit things like racial vilification. There have been studies that show that this sort of language and treatement has long term detrimental effects on the minorities subjected to them. I've provided links to support this contention. I'd appreciate you providing some proof to support your assertion that 'hate speech' causes no harm.

Is Count Dankula's pug doing nazi solute "grossly offensive"? I think to most people, no. But to the prosecutor and judge, it is

I am aware that Count Dankula was banned by the private party who provided him with service; I am unaware of any charges being brought by a prosecutor before a judge. In this example you conflate the violation of terms of service and/or withdrawal of service by a private party with the sort of 'hate speech' which is covered by existing legislation. Are you arguing that 'hate speech' laws should not exist because you think that they will grow so that rather than being simply banned for TOS violations, people like Count Dankula will be charged? If so, you'll need to show that this isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

Saying "You are a pedophile.". Clearly damages your reputation

Are you familiar with your own legislation? In several contexts that is acceptable and not libelous. In other contexts, even if it is defamatory malice must be shown to be convicted. These are subjective interpretations of the situation with reference to the law and guided by precedent. That's a very strange definition of objective, but even so, that's that same as for 'hate speech'. The standard is not 'being offended', with respect to governments limiting rights. It may well be for Facebook, but that's not what I'm arguing.

With respect to the Australian Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 it refers to "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". This is similar to language in various defamation acts (1974, 2005) that refer to 'likely to cause harm'. In both cases, an interpretation is needed - constrained by the legislation and with respect to the precedent of common law.

Common law took trial and error to find certain boundaries of legalities.

So why not allow the same process to refine the law around 'hate speech'? We've shown that government, in the form of the legislature and courts are capable of handling the limitation of the right to free speech in the case of defamation, what make you think that they will do any differently with limiting that same right in the case of 'hate speech'? Why fear tyranny, here, when there's clear evidence that tyranny did not result, there?

It all seems to come down to your conflation of 'hate speech' with people being banned for saying something that violates a private companies TOS. One causes harm, the other doesn't (necessarily). One may attract charges and conviction of breach of law, the other sees a service withdrawn or a request to leave.

Social media does not change human nature

I've never argued otherwise. What I have argued is that social media (and other communication technology) has taken behaviour that was previously treated as though it were private and made it far,

Re:Hate Speech

[Chas]

Sorry but no. Hate speech is a bullshit term used for "I disagree with this, there fore I am offended by it. So the person uttering it must be hateful."

And, it's subject to usage creep, since it's naught but a nebulous term.

You cannot simply ban speech because someone finds it offensive.

Someone ALWAYS finds some speech offensive.

Offense is something that it TAKEN, not given.

It's time to start acting like adults here. If you don't like what someone says, change the channel.
If you don't like what someone's saying in your presence, argue it with them or simply walk away.

But demanding someone be silenced because they "blasphemed" your ideals?

No. Sorry. You don't have the right to not be offended.

Re:Hate Speech

[penandpaper]

you refuse to acknowledge that 'hate speech' is more than just being offended.

It is because whenever I read any law trying to define hate speech there is a subjective component.

g thrown out of a bar for shouting things the owner doesn't like is the same as Facebook banning you for posting offensive comments.

no because one is a de facto town square. The discussion is whether Facebook is a de jure town square and that they should be stewards of rights just like a phone company can't kick you off the line for being a nazi. Or just like a baker and a gay wedding cake.

racial vilification

There are laws to stop actions. Not words. That is the difference. Please recognize the difference.

I am aware that Count Dankula was banned by the private party who provided him with service; I am unaware of any charges being brought by a prosecutor before a judge

He was convicted for being "grossly offensive" and is awaiting sentencing. His trial lasted longer than the Nuremberg trials. Think about that for a second because that is the fruit of hate speech law and culture. Don't assume I am conflating anything if you do not know the all facts. It is well known enough that a simple search will give you plenty of information.

malice must be shown to be convicted.

Yes there is a high bar. Yes motives matter as does context. You are not saying anything relevant to the underlying point.

offend, insult, humiliate

All subjective. All different for everyone.

So why not allow the same process to refine the law around 'hate speech'?

Because you do not have free speech if you have "hate speech". Offensive speech is the point of protecting speech. If you ban offensive speech you ban any speech. You seem to think we can all hold hands and sing koombaya if only certain words and idea were banned. The entire premise is built on a lack of liberty and a lack of a basic human right. Common law had its faults and had its successes. The philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence and the codified protection in the Constitution are some of the best legal works we can look at. If you want hate speech as law then you much demonstrate why that philosophy and that codified protection is obsolete. I hope you never succeed because the world will be made worse just as the UK is getting worse. Convicted for "grossly offensive" my ass.

I do not understand what appears, to me, to be hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance.

Then you have poor reading comprehension as I stated why. The difference is action. In one case, you must take action to defend yourself and reputation. In the other case, you do not.

I'm arguing that the limitations imposed on the right to free speech by governments with respect to legislation and common law precedent is of the same type and kind as the limitations for other forms of harmful speech.

And I was taking your "words that wound" to its logical conclusion when taken to the context of law. "Crying is a physical response to harm. Words can make people cry. Therefore words cause physical harm and should be banned. ". I don't care what link you provide if the underlying premise is that society should treat adults as children.

Jailing someone because they said something that offended you is not possible under laws relating to defamation and is not possible under laws relating to 'hate speech'

And yet, we are getting to see that this is patently false. It's not just offended. Remember it's "Grossly offensive".

And that conflating this with denial of service for violation of TOS is ignorant at best.

And arguing a point built on faulty assumptions when you don't have all the facts makes you look like an ass.

Re:Hate Speech

[david_thornley]

Hold on now. Who's talking about banning hate speech? I'm claiming that "hate speech" is a useful phrase. As I pointed out, it's difficult or impossible to nail down precisely, but there are examples of hate speech and examples of not-hate speech. I'm also claiming that private companies have the right to refuse to carry it, and to define it as they please. Forcing private companies to carry all contributed content indiscriminately would remove their ability to have useful forums.

It's time to start acting like adults here, and consider that there's differences between the speech that should be legal and the speech that is moral and the speech that an individual company finds best to permit on its systems. If you don't like the Terms of Service of an existing company, the free market approach is not to try to legislate its activities or to accuse it of denying your rights, but to start up your own. I prefer the free market approach except where it clearly doesn't work, so I'm not in sympathy with your complaints.

If you don't like what someone's not letting you say, argue with them, walk away, or start your own service.

BTW, I do have a right to be offended. You have the right to disregard my feelings of offense and maybe snicker at them. It's called "freedom of speech".

Re:Hate Speech

[ArmoredDragon]

means that you are *at least* 6 generations removed,

That range would be about 5 to 9.

It certainly doesn't mean anything else...

Yeah, it does, and again you're being retarded. In fact there are many reasons why this might be, like one patriarch having multiple kids with multiple wives who then intermarried with the rest of the group, a town that was isolated for several generations, or a nomadic tribe that only occasionally married with outsiders, (if at all) or many other reasons. And yes, this is all possible without inbreeding: The scientific consensus seems to be that after second cousins, there isn't a strong enough relationship to cause any ill effects, and usually in communities like these you're going to see between 4th and 8th cousins interbreeding. And the reality is that everybody has gone through this at some point in their past history; if they hadn't, then the global human population had to start out with much larger numbers than the 7 billion we have today.

This is called pedigree collapse by the way, and it is inevitable, even though in your case it is far more pronounced than that of a healthy person.

Problematic

[Koby77]

If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?

Re:Problematic

[FatdogHaiku]

If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?

Rule #1:
If an opinion or alleged statement of fact, written, spoken, or otherwise transmitted, questions the utility, morality, practicality, or motives of using AI to monitor, judge, and punish "Hate Speech", it shall be deemed to be de facto "Hate Speech".

Rule #2:
Any dispute or ambiguity shall be resolved using Rule #1.

Re:Problematic

[jedidiah]

> It only gets murky when humans lie about their intentions

Which is pretty much always.

Someone tried to sue Facebook over censorship. They claimed abuses under the Lanham act. They claimed fraud and false advertising.

The judge basically went "Meh. Everyone lies. Their basic claims about their product are just nonsense. We don't care.".

Re:Problematic

[Alypius]

Ah but they can and they have. If you disagree, you shall be destroyed.

Re:Problematic

[bricko]

Apparently many have missed to recent Supreme Court decision - There is no such thing as hate speech https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Problematic

[thegarbz]

If humans can't even decide what is "hate speech", what makes anyone believe that an AI system can?

Humans are single subjective. AI is trained on multiple humans. The point here is that an AI won't create a definition that will agree with everyone, it's that it will create a definition by majority i.e. a socially acceptable one if it is trained well enough.

AI isn't subjective, it analyses based on rules it defines based on the input it is given. That's the problem with the current model, two people will nearly always disagree.

Re:Problematic

[Rick Schumann]

It can't and won't. First of all, nothing we have currently is actually 'artificial intelligence', it's 'pseudo-intelligence' at best. Secondly, as you say, we humans can't even reach a consensus as to what is and is not 'hate speech', therefore how could even a full-on AI, conscious, fully self-aware, with human-level-or-better cognitive capabilities decide that something is or is not 'hate speech'? Such an artificial being would, more likely than not, just shake it's digital head, sadly, and mutter "Humans..", then counsel us to get over ourselves.

I think what we should do instead of censoring speech, we should censure people who say shitty, destructive things. Say whatever you want, but you'd better damned well be ready to stand behind it, or maybe you shouldn't be saying it in the first place.

Monopoly

[Tough Love]

Leaving aside for a moment the crap headline that implies the opposite of what Zuckerberg actually said, the key point here is the claim that something changed at Facebook to enable it to police itself effectively. A bit late for that now. Do business like a monopoly, get regulated like a monopoly.

Do they really need an AI?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already doing a pretty good job of censoring conservative beliefs. Most of my conservative friends on Facebook have had their account disabled for time-out periods or even outright banned. They're doing a good job already.

They do have some automation. I saw a friend post a Pepe picture, and he was banned immediately for that hateful act.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[jimtheowl]

".. my conservative friends on Facebook.."

It is amazing what passes as a "conservative" these days.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

Conservatives, by definition, resist change and support the maintenance of the status quo.

They are the least likely to recognise the changes to society that increasingly ubiquitous communication brings and to modify their behaviour accordingly. Painting with a very broad brush, even if they do recognise the external changes, they are more likely to resist or resent any requirement to change their own behaviour.

I would expect more conservatives to be moderated (banned, cautioned, censored etc.) _by_definition_.

Not making any value judgements, just pointing out that your observation is in line with expectations.

---

For extra points, observe that the more conservative a person is, the more likely that their ideals and comfort zone is going to diverge from social norms over time. Old(er) conservatives are more likely to be more conservative than younger.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[kenai_alpenglow]

So if a liberal resists changing the liberal status quo (one example: affirmative action) that makes the liberal a conservative?

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

Painting with a very broad brush, even if they do recognise the external changes, they are more likely to resist or resent any requirement to change their own behaviour.

And why the fuck not? Technology is our servitor, not the other way around. You trans-Humanist piece of worthless filth.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

To the extent that someone supports the status quo and resists change to it, their behaviour is conservative.

How you label them and whatever you mean by 'liberal status quo' sounds more like a problem with labels and definitions than a paradox or contradiction.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

And why the fuck not?

No room to ramp emotional tone. Peaked too early. Dull. -1 to Fun.

Technology is our servitor, not the other way around

Poor attempt at diversion. -1 to Troll.

You trans-Humanist piece of worthless filth.

Too great an exaggeration of conservative behaviour, fail Poe's Law. -2 to Troll.

Dull. Try again.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

Shill -2

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[bingoUV]

1.

Conservatives, by definition, resist change and support the maintenance of the status quo.

Americans (US) have created stupid labels like Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, even Republicans unrelated to the idea of a republic and Democrats unrelated to the idea of democracy. When they use these words, it means nothing logical. The definition you have supplied is logical, hence not applicable in American discourse.

2.

I would expect more conservatives to be moderated (banned, cautioned, censored etc.) _by_definition_.

How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't see any evidence for that.

Or are you saying the people doing the moderating are always non-conservative hence they will not agree with conservatives much ? If so, I don't see any evidence for that either unless you are talking about some moderators I haven't heard of.

The problem with using a logical definition is that you are able to, hence expected to, deduce more logically and state your assumptions if any. Americans have exempted themselves from this requirement by using non-logical definitions.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[serviscope_minor]

Shill -2

As a more senior member of the liberal consipracy, I can assure you he'll recieve double the usual pay rate for his exceptionally rapid triggering of you.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

You think that constitutes being triggered? Are you mentally impaired?

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[AmiMoJo]

Facebook, like Slashdot and Twitter, doesn't apply the same standard to everyone.

If you register a new account on Slashdot, your karma starts out low. You can post less often and don't get any karma bonus until you have built up your account a bit. Similarly on Twitter, brand new accounts that get immediately reported are often deleted without further warning, because they have a big problem with bots and people register new accounts to get around bans.

Facebook is similar. Once your account is established it gets more leeway. But once it has a number of "strikes" against it, posting something like a Pepe meme can get it banned rather than just warned. Pepe memes are mostly racist, particularly anti-Semitic, and associated with Nazism. The idea was to trick people by exchanging the easily recognizable swastikas for a cartoon frog, so Facebook tends to go easy on first time offenders, but after a pattern emerges they become less tolerant.

Note that I'm not defending Facebook, merely explaining this behaviour which seems to confuse a lot of people (like the infamous "I hate black people" tweet).

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[GonzoPhysicist]

Liberal is not the opposite of conservative. Try these axes;
  progressive(change) -- conservative(stasis)
  liberal(freedom) -- authoritarian(rule of law)
  left(collective rights) -- right(individual rights)
BTW affirmative action is an authoritarian idea, not liberal

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[serviscope_minor]

I'll be getting my bonus too! Thatks, you're paying for my kids through college.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't see any evidence for that.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.

In the context I was originally replying to the poster mentioned that their conservative friends were being moderated/banned. This was, in turn, with respect to the wider discussion around 'hate speech'.

'Hate speech' is new. It's a response to the changed impact of previously relatively innocuous behaviour as a result of the rise in communication technology.
In as much as both the changes and the response to them are new, then those that are more likely to resist change (conservative by my original definition) will be increasingly subject to bans.

That is, to the extent that moderation of hate speech is new; that it is still poorly defined and bans and moderation are unevenly applied those of a conservative bent are more likely to resist or reject the definition and resent the change. And, consequently, attract a greater amount of attention from those trying to moderate.

I'll confess to taking the original poster's description of their friends as being 'conservative' and using a 'resisting change' definition, although in my defence, I made that clear in my first sentence.

Re: Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

conservative - noun 1. a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.

Not my definition, and I was clear that this was the meaning I was using in the first line of the original reply I made.
That you produced an example that needs another definition to be paradoxical or contradictory is simply spoiling.
You've added nothing to the discussion here, and if you're the same AC who's been leaving invective filled one line responses to my posts then you have a pattern of missing half of what I wrote and reading into the rest something you seem to want to find.

I sincerely hope that your life and or mental state improves to the point where swearing at strangers is no longer something that you need or enjoy. This is pitiable.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

*sigh*
The original post was contextual - it referred to the situation of people described as 'conservative' experiencing a greater than average number of bans and/or moderation with respect to the wider discussion of 'hate speech'.

In that context, and with the specific meaning of 'conservative' that I was clear to show I was using, then it would not be unusual for a conservative (person resisting change) to experience greater attention with respect to moderation for a behaviour that has only recently come to be described.

With respect to the example you describe;
Given that historically women's rights are relatively recent, and that there is still considerable argument over whether they experience equal rights, then seeking to reduce those rights is a return to a previous state, a turning back of the clock and is more typically considered conservative. The push to increase rights or to have them applied equally is seen as progressive.

In as much as you state 'current status quo of women's rights' you are ignoring this context and it is from this that you get the apparent disjoint between the typical definition of conservative.

Strictly, with no other context, with the example you have given, then someone resisting the change to reduce women's rights would be conservative and those seeking change would be ... something else - nominally progressive, but that too has a lot of secondary meaning.

'conservative' has a strict definition, which I was clear to define in the original post. It's attracted other definitions from use in the US and is attached to those who identify as 'Conservative'. There is a degree of overlap of those definitions that, IMHO, applied to the original situation described and which I originally addressed by highlighting that the element of 'Conservatives' that was likely to see more banning for hate speech was related to their conservatism.

Am I clear? Any further pedantry I can help with?

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

That must be one Hell of a wasteful organization you have.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[another_twilight]

I agree.

I don't think either conservatism, nor progressiveness is 'right'. I think that society needs a tension and some kind of balance between them - a drive towards change that challenges what exists and demands that it be better and a tendency to hold on to what is valuable and useful and that realises that 'new' doesn't necessarily mean better.

But in all things, moderation. I favour a dynamic balance, one that allows periods of rapid change, and periods of greater stability. Resisting change for its own sake, or decrying stability simply because it isn't change falls into the trap of labelling and tribalism.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful reply.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[bingoUV]

'Hate speech' is new. It's a response to the changed impact of previously relatively innocuous behaviour as a result of the rise in communication technology.

1. Hate communication is older than speech itself. Wolves communicate to express hate. Literally, internet non-audio communication is also not "speech" as in human vocal cords being involved, so if wolves are excluded from "speech", so are internet communications.
If you deem human language necessary for "speech", hate speech is tens of thousands of years old.
The "concept" of hate speech, on the other hand, only developed with civilization, which is "only thousands of years new". Especially in the US, where it has been legal hence not an interesting concept, it is relatively new - as the so-called SJWs are "punishing" hate speech by their own extra-legal means. Yeah, decades new.

Calling 'Hate speech" new makes any sense only after giving so many concessions. This makes the (US) American definition of "conservatives" almost seem logical in comparison.

2. Even if hate speech is new, conservatives will also find the "progressive" (change embracing) communication worthy of bans. So if moderators are "conservative", they could ban progressive speech and if moderators are progressive, they could ban conservative speech. So only if you give evidence of moderators being largely progressive, does it make any sense that conservatives are more moderated as hate speech.

That is, to the extent that moderation of hate speech is new; that it is still poorly defined and bans and moderation are unevenly applied those of a conservative bent are more likely to resist or reject the definition and resent the change. And, consequently, attract a greater amount of attention from those trying to moderate.

Another consequence - conservatives moderate progressive speech as hate speech.

If you are saying conservatives, being vehemently resistant to change, refuse categorically to use the new tool called "moderating" :

1. They would also refuse to use the communication (speech) tool which was being moderated in the first place
2. Every breath is a new one, every day is a new one - if such vehemence against change is being assumed no conservative should be alive today.
3. Hence, the commonly observed distribution of conservatism needs to be assumed to explain obvious reality - different people would be conservative to different extents about different topics. Here, the relevant conservatives are those who already have embraced the newer tools of communication that are subject to moderation. Hence :
3a. Being "less conservative", they could also have embraced moderation to mark progressive speech as "hate speech".
3b. They could be less conservative about using moderation than about potato farming - hence they could freely moderate progressive speech about potato farming as "hate speech".

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[serviscope_minor]

Not wasteful, it's the arm of the Liberal Conspiracy which pays for shills to trigger right wingers on the internet. You know we exist: you already accused someone for being a shill for triggering you.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

Shills don't exist to trigger, most aren't even aware they're being used.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[serviscope_minor]

Lol OK, you odn't know what "shill" means then.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

Look up the word, go ahead.

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[serviscope_minor]

I did, that's how I know you have no idea what it means.

So cute!!

Re:Do they really need an AI?

[NicknameUnavailable]

You're full of shit, because you fully fit the definition of a shill whether you're paid or not.

April 1st was last week!

[DatbeDank]

This has got to be the funniest thing Zuckerberg has ever said.

Hopefully Facebook won't even exist by that time anyway.

That's funny

[burtosis]

Because the exact opposite happened to microsofts AI in less than 24 hours on twitter. I'm not sure forcing an "AI" algorithm to stare into the forsaken gaping abyss of human social media is really going to end well.

Correction

[nowwith25percentmore]

Correction: "Facebook AI will curb free speech"

Re:Correction

[chakan2]

Why not, Fox has been doing that for years.

censorship!

[Hugh Jorgen]

Alive and well. Snowflakes have started started down a slippery fucking slope here. Life and society isn't all kumbaya, rainbows and unicorns. Pussies.

Re:censorship!

[EETech1]

It's ok, Facebook saves everything you delete too!

It's especially valuable data because it is your true feelings, that you might be too afraid to post.

Re:censorship!

[jedidiah]

> apparently censorship is when you clean graffiti from your own property

Except it's not graffiti. It's the user generated content you told everyone they could create.

You're just making a weak excuse for fascist nonsense. You don't care about our founding principles and will find any weak excuse to violate them.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

and I suppose it's ok if 'they' want to silence you, too? No? Ohh, now I see.

fucking hypocrite.

But muh self driving cars

[yuriklastalov]

Oh look, a real world example of powerful entities planning to use AI systems for evil!

But go ahead, mock the AI skeptics with Skynet and Matrix strawmen.

We always seem to find ourselves in these little quandaries in our reckless pursuit of scientific development and apparently no one seems to think it's a problem. We can pass righteous judgement on the Soviets for their utterly insane development of nuclear technologies but then pat ourselves on the back for the latest social media spy tech disguised as a consumer product.

Don't worry

[ArchieBunker]

The Democrats and the SJW's have already decided what they consider hate speech.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

You understand how marxism works, right?

Society follows some order A
Revolutionary group 1 fights to change it to order B, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 2 fights to change it to order C, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 3 fights to change it to order D, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 4 fights to change it to order E, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 5 fights to change it to order F, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 6 fights to change it to order G, perhaps violently ... ad nauseum, or at least until there is literally only one dumbass left, at which point he/she/it/zit/whatever dies and poof goes the species

If you honestly think there aren't an even more strict bunch of people in line behind you, ready to call YOU a nazi and round you up for reeducation/extermination, then you are a complete moron. The reason smart people say nothing is hate speech is to avoid an endless sequence of persecution.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

No, they just think it needs to be debated and refuted instead of banned and driven underground.

Re:Don't worry

[jedidiah]

> Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

So Republicans are the only ones left that truly believe in liberal Western values. I guess I will be voting Republican from now on then.

The whole point of giving peasants like you this little bit of freedom is that you can say what needs to be said to the powerful without risk of punishment because you've manged to offend them. Bring back harsh punishments for political heresy and speech from the masses becomes politically useless.

Re:Don't worry

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, to be fair many of the alt right carry nazi flags, have SS tattoos, and so on.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?

The asinine, unthinking, childish SJWs who have literally formally institutionalized methods of censorship shutting down speech they can't logically refute?

Yes, "progressives" are the real close-minded Fascists/Nazis.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

So Republicans are the only ones left that truly believe in liberal Western values.

No, Republicans are denialists. Instead of acknowledging that something exists and by extension having to defend "liberal Western values", they'd rather deny that the thing exists at all. Same thing with Climate Change, Evolution, etc. Hate speed is obviously first amendment protected. Just like porn and a lot of other things Republicans wish to censor. Meanwhile, a lot of "liberal" Democrats want to censor things as well. They just try to argue the absurdity of the first amendment not meaning what it says.

Personally, I find it hard to tolerate the bullshit from both sides. I certainly won't vote "Republican" or "Democrat". I will vote for an individual I believe has good intentions, is willing to abide by the actual law, and will work to legally change it if it conflicts with what they feel the law should be. That won't necessarily produce the best results, but it's better than people who are party members or who are delusional.

Re:Don't worry

[Bing Tsher E]

You have direct experience to back up that sort of assertion?

Me, I've not seen that many 'alt right' people in real life to know.

Re:Don't worry

[grep -v '.*' *]

*THANK* you. I was about to reply to this but you did a much better job than I would have. I'm only sorry you won't get an alert for a response to (y)our message since you're anon.

Re:Don't worry

[Maxo-Texas]

Dude... photos from charleston and other alt-right gatherings clearly show them with tattoos, nazi flags, making nazi salutes, saying "Hiel Trump", etc.

lol.

Re:Don't worry

[ClickOnThis]

You understand how marxism works, right?

Society follows some order A
Revolutionary group 1 fights to change it to order B, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 2 fights to change it to order C, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 3 fights to change it to order D, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 4 fights to change it to order E, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 5 fights to change it to order F, perhaps violently
Revolutionary group 6 fights to change it to order G, perhaps violently ... ad nauseum, or at least until there is literally only one dumbass left, at which point he/she/it/zit/whatever dies and poof goes the species

IANA Marxist, but let me offer my view, from what I know. You left out what Marx actually proposed, which was that there would be one final revolution that would ensure there would be no more.

Marx observed that revolutions in history followed a cycle of the oppressed rising up to conquer their oppressors, and the victors then morphing into the new oppressors. He proposed a system that he thought would prevent the victors from turning into oppressors, by placing the protection of workers at the heart of the government's purpose. Noble in theory perhaps, but we know from history that it didn't work out the way he expected.

If you honestly think there aren't an even more strict bunch of people in line behind you, ready to call YOU a nazi and round you up for reeducation/extermination, then you are a complete moron. The reason smart people say nothing is hate speech is to avoid an endless sequence of persecution.

And this is why Marxism failed. Human nature is not so easily altered as he had thought.

Re:Don't worry

[kenai_alpenglow]

Well, to be fair many of the alt left wear Che Guerra (sp) T-shirts, have Mao tattoos (or put Mao ornaments on the White House Christ^h^h^h^h^h^hWinter Tree, and so on.

Re:Don't worry

[Maxo-Texas]

And when I see them on the news marching on cities, running down innocent women with cars, talking openly about ethnic cleansing on camps, I'll address them just as forthrightly.

Anyone who worships the greatest enemy the u.s. ever faced isn't really american. Nazi's are flat out evil.

Don't get nazi tattoos, carry nazi flags, and throw nazi salutes.
 

Re:Don't worry

[Maxo-Texas]

No, they were not left wing. The used the term "Socialists" for political cover. But they fuckin hated left wing groups and political parties.

https://www.snopes.com/news/20...

The full name of Adolf Hitlerâ(TM)s Nazi Party, the political movement that brought him to power and supplied the infrastructure of the fascist dictatorship over which he would preside, was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party. According to historians, the complicated moniker reveals more about the image the party wanted to project and the constituency it aimed to build than it did about the Nazisâ(TM) true political goals, which were building a state based on racial superiority and brute-force governance.

Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the partyâ(TM)s conspicuous use of the term âoesocialistâ â" which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum â" has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.

Richard J. Evans: âIt Would Be Wrong to See Nazism as a Form of, or an Outgrowth From, Socialismâ(TM)

Despite having declared, at various times, âoeI am a socialist,â âoeWe are socialists,â and similar avowals, on a personal level Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. This excerpt from a speech Hitler gave in 1922 (quoted in William L. Shirerâ(TM)s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published in 1960) is indicative:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, âoeDeutschland ueber Alles,â to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land â" that man is a Socialist.

And this is what came out of Adolf Hitlerâ(TM)s mouth on another occasion when a comrade riled him by harping on socialism (as reported by Henry A. Turner, author of German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, published in 1985):

Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.

In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term:

The proof was in the pudding. Not long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia: ...

Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to âoeracially worthyâ (non-Jewish) beneficiaries.

In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed.

Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers.

In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal âoeFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needâ was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of âoeTake everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.â

Above all, t

Re:Don't worry

[Mashiki]

And when I see them on the news marching on cities, running down innocent women with cars, talking openly about ethnic cleansing on camps, I'll address them just as forthrightly.

You should have started a couple of years ago then. About the time that BLM started radicalizing and members started attacking police. And several years before that with them torching, smashing businesses at protests, and don't forget the most recent cast in Hamburg which looked more like a revolutionary war was going on.

Re:Don't worry

[goose-incarnated]

Well, to be fair many of the alt right carry nazi flags, have SS tattoos, and so on.

No. A *few* of the alt-right carry nazi flags, have SS tattoos, and so on. General society shuns these people anyway so they aren't a threat.

OTOH, very many people want to silence speech that they do not agree with. This group is not only a lot larger than the nazi group, they are also a larger threat to society.

Re:Don't worry

[AmiMoJo]

"Western values" have always included limits on speech, even in the US. For example:

- State secrets
- Certain personal details like medical information
- Credible threats
- Speech that directly causes injury/death ("fire!")
- Contempt of court
- Lying under oath
- Grooming children for sexual exploitation
- Encouraging suicide
- Planning crimes

Beyond that there is a lot of speech that while not illegal can still have severe consequences for saying, and free speech protections don't extend to private venues.

There are many grey areas. What constitutes illegal harassment, or a credible threat, for example. But it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion of free speech and hate speech unless you first acknowledge that you never had, and never will have the absolute right to say anything you like at any time.

In fact, if you want to defend free speech, like I do, you need to understand this because an extreme "everything must be 4chan" position is not an effective argument.

Re: Don't worry

[cyber-vandal]

Please go and tell some neo-Nazis that they're a bunch of leftie socialists. That would make a hilarious video clip.

Re:Don't worry

[AmiMoJo]

As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?

Medical science too.

If words had no effect on people then they wouldn't be able to cause stress, depression and other mental illnesses. These illnesses have physical manifestations. Words literally have a physical affect on a human's body.

Those people who decide to shoot up schools or YouTube or drive a truck into some people were not physically beaten until they agreed to do it, for example.

So just as society has an interest in preventing physical harm through beatings, and an interest in preventing illness through poisoning, it has an interest in preventing damage through speech.

You might argue that it's unfair because some people are over-sensitive and harmed by the slightest thing. The law has your back here, it recognizes the concept of a "reasonable person". Just like it accepts that while some people might be injured by peanuts, as long as you don't deliberately feed them peanuts just to hurt them it's their problem.

I guess that makes science an SJW Nazi.

Re:Don't worry

[Killall -9 Bash]

And when I see them on the news marching on cities, running down innocent women with cars, talking openly about ethnic cleansing on camps, I'll address them just as forthrightly.

Yes, you'll see them on the news. Not in your neighborhood. On the news. And you'll disagree with anything they say, because these are the straw-men you were trained to hate.

Re:Don't worry

[AmiMoJo]

put Mao ornaments on the White House Christ^h^h^h^h^h^hWinter Tree

If that was true you might actually have a point. When you have to make stuff up, it rather undermines you entire argument.

Re:Don't worry

[rtb61]

Capitalism does the same, it just demands to make a profit in every single step.

Facebook probably will kerb hate speech in five to ten years time, as growing unpopularity forces it to shut down servers. Do you know "I hate you", is in fact not hate speech, now how fucked up is that.

Re:Don't worry

[penandpaper]

Part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities. You are using a childs response to mean words as an appropriate action for the government. "He called me mean names. I am crying because he called me mean names. (A physical response!) I was violently attacked as evident by my crying. Throw him in jail.". I can't believe you think that society should behave like a child and that it should coddle citizens.

Treat the underlying condition (bullying, stress, depression, mental illness). We can agree that is not good and we can and should do something to help those people before they snap. Do not apply a band-aide totalitarian government that outlaw words and ideas because they make you feel uncomfortable. It is not for society to ensure your delicate sensibilities never be offended. It is not the responsibility for society to make sure ugly ideas never touch your ears.

"Science can make people feel uncomfortable. Discomfort has a physical response. Science is violence. Ban it. ".
  That's you. That's what you sound like.

Re:Don't worry

[AmiMoJo]

Part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities.

That's what I said. The bit about the law recognizing the concept of a "reasonable person".

I can't believe you think that society should behave like a child and that it should coddle citizens.

I can't believe you have child's level of reading comprehension. The example you give is idiotic and runs contrary to what I explained the law is. You also failed to notice that I was merely explaining the science and the law, not actually advocating either position (although I do broadly agree on those points).

Think about that for a moment. You made yourself angry. Probably because you were triggered by my username and didn't read the post properly. How many times has this happened before? What else are you angry about that was just your own misunderstanding?

Re: Don't worry

[reanjr]

Can you please - for edification - describe the distinction in your mind between the Nazi's under Hitler and the Jacobins under Robespierre? Because if you can't, your entire comment is moronic.

Re: Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazi movement was predicated on the racial superiority of ethnic Germans. The Jacobin movement was predicated on the idea that the aristocracy could not be trusted any more. The Nazi movement benefited the already powerful at the expense of the already marginalized. The Jacobin movement didn't really benefit anyone, but it was primarily concerned with shifting power away from the already powerful. Both were pretty awful, but for very different reasons. And nothing comes close to the scale of the terror enacted by the Nazis - the reign of terror killed 40,000-50,000 people. The holocaust killed 13 million, and Nazi aggression led to a war that killed 50-80 million.

So, no, his comment wasn't the moronic one.

Re:Don't worry

[penandpaper]

although I do broadly agree on those points

Yes, I know. That is why I said what I said. Recognizing the existing law applied to a "reasonable person" doesn't address what you already have broadly stated is your position in previous discussions nor does it address the underlying change in culture in regards to speech. "speech is violence" is the new norm through which academics justify censorship. That you defended with "Words literally have a physical affect" and "society has an interest in preventing damage through speech".

Claiming "I was merely explaining the science and the law and not advocating either" is bullshit. You are defending "speech is violence" because "society has an interest in preventing damage through speech" because "words have a physical affect".

You are defending a culture to act like children. I am highlighting and mocking the culture you advocate which will influence what is a "reasonable person" and it will influence the law. The UK is taking the lead and I can only imagine because there are a lot of people that think like you and mock ,as you say, 'freeze peach'. I am not angry or triggered or w/e for things you say. I am concerned with the culture you advocate.

you were triggered by my username

Some reason when I see your username I think of Mojo Jojo. No particular reason. Not trying to be insulting. He says his name a particular way that I hear when I read your name. Maybe I am triggered and I need to save me from the evil scientist. Wait... Are you a scientist? @_@ God save me.

Re:Don't worry

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It was the liberals who, via the ACLU, defended Nazi rights to march against the outraged more conservative masses in the 1970s and 80s.

Now they lead the charge for censorship? Huh?

Re:Don't worry

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, so what does all that have to do with "part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities"?

I never, have never defended anyone's "right" to be offended or said that people should be protected from "naughty words and ideas". Mere offense certainly should not be protected.

For a normal, healthy person it takes a lot more than saying rude words to cause mental illness. That's the whole point of the "reasonable person" test.

I am highlighting and mocking the culture you advocate which will influence what is a "reasonable person" and it will influence the law.

I don't advocate that, you are simply wrong. The current definition is, if anything, a little overly sensitive in relation to things like offensive jokes, tweets that were clearly not serious and the definition of obscenity.

If you have a better concept than the "reasonable person" test, ideally one that has been proven somewhere, please state it.

Re:Don't worry

[giampy]

The whole point of giving peasants like you this little bit of freedom is that you can say what needs to be said to the powerful without risk of punishment because you've manged to offend them.

Yes but you can arguably make the same point by stating the fact and not offending anyone, but infinitely more importantly without offending the quest for the truth, so to speak.

You want to express an opinion, fine, then don't use derogatory words, document yourself, bring your facts and data, express your opinions stating them as opinions, with some arguments and possible counterarguments, then invite others to do the same and be open to listen to their points as well.

Nothing that peer review (for example, and with all its limitation) hasn't managed to do in the scientific world since a century or so.

Re:Don't worry

[giampy]

Yes that would require some board, association, system and/or ultimately the whole society to determine what is acceptable or not, draw the lines, and impose appropriate sanctions, but so what ? and isn't the same today as well ? (except will sloppier and unclear rules ?).

I think the idea that you must be totally free to wake up in the morning and spread misinformation and bullshit without paying a price for the negative externality that this brings to the whole society it's just wrong, and has to end, IMHO.

Re:Don't worry

[penandpaper]

what does all that have to do with "part of being an adult..."

>culture to act like children

For a normal, healthy person it takes a lot more than saying rude words to cause mental illness. That's the whole point of the "reasonable person" test.

That is rather ablist of you. Particularly so that one explanation for high suicidality in the trans community is because of rude words or as they say "denying their humanity" because of not using preferred pronouns or the mere idea that "there are only 2 genders".

a little overly sensitive in relation to things like offensive jokes...better concept than the "reasonable person"

It is overly sensitive to anything that is "offensive" to the prevailing culture in power charged with executing the law. The "reasonable person" is sidelined by the police, prosecutor, and judge using vague law to get what they want. I think any "reasonable person" can understand that Count Dankula isn't a secret nazi using his pug to make nazism more palatable to the average person. Yet, that is irrelevant because "grossly offensive" intent be damned. A better concept is to not mess with such dangerous precedents. A better concept is to not use vague law that can be abused with subjectivity.

Re:Don't worry

[Maxo-Texas]

Nazis and neonazis are repugnant as are people who talk about ethnic cleansing in college speeches and who toss nazi salutes in their meetings.

The U.S. kicked fascist butts around the globe for nearly 5 years from 41 to 45. The U.S. is the original Antifa.

Re: Don't worry

[Maxo-Texas]

Thank you AC for saying,

"The Nazi movement was predicated on the racial superiority of ethnic Germans. The Jacobin movement was predicated on the idea that the aristocracy could not be trusted any more. The Nazi movement benefited the already powerful at the expense of the already marginalized. The Jacobin movement didn't really benefit anyone, but it was primarily concerned with shifting power away from the already powerful. Both were pretty awful, but for very different reasons. And nothing comes close to the scale of the terror enacted by the Nazis - the reign of terror killed 40,000-50,000 people. The holocaust killed 13 million, and Nazi aggression led to a war that killed 50-80 million.

So, no, his comment wasn't the moronic one."

Saved me some time from this attempted pivot. Much appreciated sir or madam.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Saying that words can have a physical affect on a human's body is fine; there's certainly evidence for that. Saying that they are violence is something else. Hurting someone's feelings is not the same as hitting them.

I don't trust the people in power to use "hate speech" laws any more reasonably than I expect them to use blasphemy laws. They're too easily weaponized to shut down unpopular, but reasonable, speech.

Re:Don't worry

[AmiMoJo]

Personally I wouldn't use the world "violence", but that's just avoiding the issue.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

There are some loud people on the Left saying that speech is violence, which I think is what the AC was referring to. We can object to them using that term without saying they're wrong about everything (although I personally think the people who do that are wrong more often than not). We also have to consider whether making hateful speech illegal is the best way to prevent damage through speech; I believe it isn't, unless it's a direct incitement to violence.

Re:Don't worry

[Bing Tsher E]

So you just watched television and viewed pictures on websites, and you know alt-right.

Re:Don't worry

[hai_Priesty]

......Did you miss the multiple "racial" riots that happened 2016-17? Hate crimes where large amount of like-minded people coordinated to achieve violence are almost always by non-whites nowadays. (And truck of peace, which is a can of worms which have an even more complex dynamics with illegal immigration disguised as refugees, and many other factors.)

On the other hand, white supremacists have difficulty (comparatively) finding like-minded comrades to lynch a black together. White culture and even White Supremacist culture circa 2018 is simply not violent enough or populous enough to be near the top of social menace ranking. Some other cultures, on the other hand, have large enough numbers and cohesion to have a ghetto kingdom of their own ...

Grooming gangs of Muslim men failed to integrate into British society

Re:Don't worry

[butchersong]

Much of that is a reflection of the alt-right springing from online communities. It's trolling and satire. We label them as Nazi and so they say embrace the label and throw it back.

Re:Don't worry

[butchersong]

I identify as Republican thank you very much. It is my gender and I expect you to respect it.

Re:Don't worry

[david_thornley]

There's also historical considerations for the name of the Nazi party.

The National Socialist German Worker's Party had socialistic and nationalistic wings at the start. I'm not completely sure how well they got along, but they were in that one party. The socialists were purged in the 1930s, leaving the nationalists.

Somewhere in Mein Kampf, Hitler describes propaganda as an advertisement for the actual principles of the party. He said that the party principles would necessarily change over time, but that it was better to keep the same propaganda, even when it diverged from the new principles. The NSDAP presented itself as a nationalist and a socialist party, but the name was part of the propaganda, so Hitler wouldn't change it after getting rid of the Socialists.

Re:Don't worry

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

If words had no effect on people then they wouldn't be able to cause stress, depression and other mental illnesses. These illnesses have physical manifestations. Words literally have a physical affect on a human's body.

As the old childrens' rhyme goes, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me!"

People choose to be offended, upset, saddened, etc. by what they hear. There is no right to no be offended, nor should their be. Speech advocating for violence is one thing, but hate speech is overly broad to the point of being a meaningless term. It's being used as a way to censor ideas people disagree with.

If only AI would curb Facebook in 5 to 10 years...

[MerlinTheWizard]

Non-biased AI might do that actually. It should not take long for a decent AI system to figure out how Facebook is a huge waste of time and energy, and flag it undesirable.

translation

[ooloorie]

Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years

What Zuckerberg will likely be "curbing" and what Facebook tends to ban:

- claims that racism is not the primary cause of poverty and criminality in minority communities
- pointing out that gender is not a social construct
- using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person
- rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
- speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
- speech critical or disapproving of Islam
- anything containing derogatory words for progressive protected classes (but not derogatory words for straight white males)

Of course, the net effect will be that Facebook turns even more into a progressive bubble. And while that may be comforting to progressives, it makes it hard for them to understand why their favorite political candidates or policies don't catch on among Americans in general.

Re:translation

[ravenshrike]

Oh you can spew out as much hatred as you want against plenty of people. Cake makers and gun owners come to mind.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

First they forbid burning gays at the stake,

You are apparently not very familiar with the vile and oppressive history of progressives and leftists on homosexuality.

then they banned imprisonment,

Are you kidding? Progressives love through people in prison.

then they outlawed discrimination.

Indeed, progressives stomp on freedom of association with their jackboots. As a gay man, I can't even refuse to serve people who preach that I should be killed.

Now you can't even spew out vile hatred without hiding behind a computer screen.

You're projecting; it's progressives that "spew vile hatred", usually of conservatives and classical liberals. And at the same time, they try to trample on the free speech rights of others.

What's a good old Conservative to do?!

What conservatives usually do: go to church, volunteer, donate to charity, and raise their kids in traditional two parent households. You know, the kind of thing that produces successful kids and a decent, civilized society.

The other thing they should do is quite Facebook and speak out against jerks like you.

Re:translation

[serviscope_minor]

Are you kidding? Progressives love through people in prison.

I mean sure, if you invent a new meaning for progressives then you can say that. Progressives are delicious too as it happens. Also progresives can fly higher than most other birds.

As a gay man, I can't even refuse to serve people who preach that I should be killed.

Advocacy of murder is not as far as I can tell a protected class.

Re:translation

[bazorg]

That's a very limited translation you made. Slashdot may have a clear US-centric audience, but Facebook has more than 1 billion users all over the world. If all US Conservatives feeling slighted by the items on your list were on FB (I mean ALL of them), they'd still be a small part of this total.
Your ideas of what is a "progressive bubble" is and of what are the main issues that drive a wedge between "progressive" and "conservative" are really too US-Centric to be the real guidelines for FB.

Just take a look at what is considered "left" and "right" for politics in Europe vs USA, and you'll see that your local issues aren't really anyone else's issues.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Which part of "AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years" was too hard for you to understand?

That is, they are bad at banning it now, they will be getting better at it in the future.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

That's a very limited translation you made. Slashdot may have a clear US-centric audience, but Facebook has more than 1 billion users all over the world.

Quite the opposite: a lot of the reason why FB is banning this stuff is because of European restrictions on free speech.

Just take a look at what is considered "left" and "right" for politics in Europe vs USA, and you'll see that your local issues aren't really anyone else's issues.

I know exactly what is considered "left" and "right" in Europe, being from Europe originally. Yes, European and US politics are closely linked, even if most Europeans are too ignorant to see the connections.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

I mean sure, if you invent a new meaning for progressives then you can say that.

Nothing new about it: progressives favor strict regulations and laws in order to accomplish "progress". Those regulations and laws are backed by throwing people in jail if they don't comply.

Advocacy of murder is not as far as I can tell a protected class.

No, not per se. But some protected classes advocate murder, and they remain protected classes despite their advocacy of murder.

Re:translation

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "tend" is not a synonym for always.

Typical racist reasoning on your part.

Re:translation

[Dorianny]

How's that any different from Conservatives favoring laws that revert society back to Biblical times. Alabama only repealed it's ban on interracial marriages in 2006 and there are still states with anti-sodomy laws in the books, despite both being ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.

Re: translation

[mapkinase]

> using a non-preferred pronoun with a transgendered person

I always wanted to know how do you know. I know a cashier at a local shop who was going through transition. I was really confused on what to call them during that period: "sir or ma'am".

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

How's that any different from Conservatives favoring laws that revert society back to Biblical times

First, saying "X likes to put people in prison" doesn't imply "only X likes to put people in prison".

Second, only a small percentage of Republicans or "Conservatives" are Christian conservatives; many conservatives are fiscal conservatives, free market conservatives, or libertarians/classical liberals.

But on your particular points...

Alabama only repealed it's ban on interracial marriages in 2006

Anti-miscegenation laws and segregation laws were laws pushed by progressives and Democrats; mainstream Christianity and Republicans generally did not oppose miscegenation. In fact, Christianity was a strong proponent of the idea that all humans are equal under God. To be sure, some people who favored miscegenation tried to justify it by the Bible after the fact (just like they did with science), but just because some progressives used X to justify their hateful policies doesn't mean that X actually supports their hateful policies.

and there are still states with anti-sodomy laws in the books

Anti-sodomy laws predate Christianity, and Christianity has never been consistently anti-sodomy or anti-gay. When Christianity has opposed homosexuality, it has opposed the sex act, not the orientation. And many American conservatives, even Christian conservatives, don't want homosexuality to be illegal, they simply want government not to promote it or treat it as a protected class.

Furthermore, most of the 20th century anti-gay political efforts were largely driven by progressives, fascists, and socialists, not by conservatives or libertarians. Progressives didn't just imprison homosexuals, they tried to apply forced sterilization and forced medical treatments, and they didn't make a distinction between thought and deed: if you were homosexual, progressives considered you deviant and wanted to fix or eliminate you.

So your neat division into "left/progressives=pro-sex, pro-interracial marriage", "conservatives/libertarians=anti-sex, anti-interracial marriage" is bullshit.

Re:translation

[serviscope_minor]

Nothing new about it: progressives favor strict regulations and laws in order to accomplish "progress".

Like I said progrssives (for my own private definition) rarely weigh more than 35 grams and are covered in warm fur. If you invent your own private definitions you sound silly.

But some protected classes advocate murder,

So, er gender advoctes murder? Or do you mean religion advocates murder? perhaps you mean skin colour advocates murder?

here's a free clue: protected class is about a trait not an instance of that trait.

Re:translation

[Dorianny]

Oh spare me. The conservatives were with the Democratic party (also known as the Dixicrats) until the Truman and the liberal wing of the party took control and pushed it towards supporting the civil rights movement. After that the Conservatives left the Democratic party and eventually mostly joined the GOP.

Only Conservatives consider gay's not being able to marry or have cakes at their wedding, fare and equal treatment. The rest of us call it what it is; discrimination on sexual orientation based on religious grounds

FYI: Conservative in the context of the issues we are discussing obviously refers to social conservatives, leave the "fiscal conservatives, free market conservatives" out of it.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Like I said progrssives (for my own private definition) rarely weigh more than 35 grams and are covered in warm fur. If you invent your own private definitions you sound silly.

I don't "invent definitions"; I simply go by the history of the progressive movement, i.e., people who self-identified and are still recognized as progressive. I'm sorry if you're not familiar with the history of the progressive movement.

Or do you mean religion advocates murder?

Islam advocates killing homosexuals and apostates.

here's a free clue: protected class is about a trait not an instance of that trait.

If say "I'm a Muslim and my religion teaches that atheists/apostates/homosexuals should be killed.", I risk getting slammed with an anti-discrimination lawsuit if I refuse to serve you. In the UK, I risk getting charged with a hate crime merely by saying something that might upset Muslims even if true.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

The rest of us call it what it is; discrimination on sexual orientation based on religious grounds

Even conservatives call it that. The difference is that conservatives and libertarians believe that discrimination by businesses and individuals ought to be legal, on religious or any other grounds, As a gay man, I welcome any business to discriminate against me for my sexual orientation if they so choose.

Oh spare me. The conservatives were with the Democratic party (also known as the Dixicrats) until the Truman and the liberal wing of the party took control and pushed it towards supporting the civil rights movement.

Conservatives pushed for equality under the law; that is, they pushed for the abolition of the hateful and racist policies Democrats and progressives had enacted in the early half of the 20th century, and they were the primary driver of that movement until the mid-1960's.

After that, the Democrats and progressives then took a different tack on "civil rights": Democrats and progressives embraced social justice, massive welfare spending, and equality of outcome. And the consequence? African American communities stagnated and the black family was destroyed. Democrats and progressives are still racially discriminating, they are just doing it differently today, and it is just as harmful.

Republicans, libertarians, and conservatives have been pretty consistent: the government should treat everybody equally, and businesses should be free to do whatever they want to do.

Democrats and progressive also have been pretty consistent: they want to make legal distinctions based on race, and they want to impose those distinctions on businesses and private individuals.

Re:translation

[ravenshrike]

That presumes that Facebook bans all instances of those things. Which was never claimed. Instead you get things like the banning of Diamond and Silk, which Facebook claims was "an accident of enforcement". That is, to put it lightly, complete bullshit. It was done quite purposefully by whoever pulled the trigger on it.

Re:translation

[Dorianny]

In a nutshell you are fine with a dinner refusing gay's or African-Americans lunch because as a private business they are free to discriminate as they please. Well if they can discriminator against member of the community, then why can't the community discriminate against them but let's say refusing them a business license!

FYI: Democrats, liberal, progressive; Republican , conservative are not interchangeable terms. The GOP used to be the party of the progressives (heck Lincoln was a Republican) and the Southern slave-owners were members of the Democratic party. Infact since we are discussing ideology and not politics, leave the political parties out of it.

And finally I dare you to find me a African-American community that "believes" there were better off in the pre "civil rights" Jim Crow era (at the time a Democrat) , you asinine turd

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

In a nutshell you are fine with a dinner refusing gay's or African-Americans lunch because as a private business they are free to discriminate as they please

I believe strongly that it should be legal. And while I don't push the issue for African Americans (not being one), I strongly and personally object to anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals because I think they are very harmful to me as a gay man.

The GOP used to be the party of the progressives (heck Lincoln was a Republican)

Slavery was a set of racially discriminatory government laws and policies; Lincoln fought to abolish those laws. That makes Lincoln a libertarian or small government conservative, not a progressive.

Well if they can discriminator against member of the community, then why can't the community discriminate against them but let's say refusing them a business license!

Ah, so you believe that people should only be allowed to engage in business transactions if licensed by the state, and you believe that "the state" actually represents "the community". Both of those beliefs are typically progressive and fascist.

FYI: Democrats, liberal, progressive; Republican , conservative are not interchangeable terms.

Quite correct. When I say "Democrats and progressives", I'm making a statement that is true of both groups.

Southern slave-owners were members of the Democratic party.

And the people who gave us Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws, segregation, eugenics, and forced sterilization were both mostly progressives and Democrats. (Of course, there have always been some progressives in the Republican party as well; the Republicans have their share of jerks too, after all).

And finally I dare you to find me a African-American community that "believes" there were better off in the pre "civil rights" Jim Crow era

I didn't say that "they were better off". What I said was: "African American communities stagnated [after the 1960's] and the black family was destroyed." Those are facts that Democrats, Republicans, progressives, and conservatives agree on. Where they differ is on what they see as the cause. Democrats and progressives attribute it to massive, continued racism, but that explanation is ludicrous.

you asinine turd

Thank you for showing your true colors. I actually considered myself a progressive and used to be a registered Democrat myself, until I read about the history of the movement and the party. I'm just glad I got out. You people are just like a mindless cult.

Re:translation

[serviscope_minor]

I don't "invent definitions"

You clearly do. You claim to do it from example, but then you are very sleective with your examples.

Islam advocates killing homosexuals and apostates.

All the Abrahamic religious texts do. That doesn't mean all their followers do.

If say "I'm a Muslim and my religion teaches that atheists/apostates/homosexuals should be killed.", I risk getting slammed with an anti-discrimination lawsuit if I refuse to serve you.

Technically you risk a lawsuit for simply existing: anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether it has merit or not... I've never heard of someone being successfully sued for refusing service to someone beig homophobic.

So pics or it didn't happen.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

I've never heard of someone being successfully sued for refusing service to someone beig homophobic.

You also are unaware of the homophobic and racist history of progressivism. In fact, you're simply ignorant all around.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

- pointing out that gender is not a social construct

OK, what word do you want to use? I'm a man. I'm comfortable with that, and I'm sexually attracted to women, which means I have a somewhat easier time of it than if either of those were false. I wear certain clothes, and am discouraged from wearing certain others. I act and speak in certain ways that are recognizably masculine. There's actually no reason somebody would need a penis to dress, act, or speak like I do. There's no reason I couldn't wear a nice dress (except that it would be hard to find one in my size), and hang around women enough to speak and act like one.

All of this stuff can change across societies. In another society, I might wear a kilt instead of pants. I'd be expected to do and say different things.

So, there's social differences between men and women, and people can be one or the other without having the appropriate plumbing. What do you call that?

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

All of this stuff can change across societies. In another society, I might wear a kilt instead of pants. I'd be expected to do and say different things

But it is a universal of human societies that they have separate male and female genders and gender roles, and that those strongly align with sex and biology. Furthermore, while there are many superficial differences between gender roles in different societies, there are also many commonalities that are determined by biology and are necessary for societies to function. Societies can function with a small percentage of people who don't conform to their gender roles, but they can't function if gender roles disappear.

Classical liberals (like myself) believe people should choose their gender roles freely, without government coercion or interference. That naturally produce unequal outcomes, outcomes where women earn less, men live shorter lives, and almost everybody chooses the gender that conforms to their biology.

Progressives (like you) believe that gender and gender roles are arbitrary social constructs. From that starting point, you then conclude that differences in outcome that correlate with sex or gender must be due to injustice and oppression. And to address that supposed injustice and oppression, you create authoritarian laws and try to indoctrinate people into believing in fictions that are clearly in conflict with biology.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

oolorie, demonstrating the shibboleth of his cult of hate. All who believe in the Way of oolorie are rational, informed, and good, all who deny his mantras are ignorant, irrational, and bad. Preach! Preach on! Decry all those who do not know your enlightenment! They shall worship you and despair!

My parents experienced hate and oppression under the Nazis, and I experienced it personally under socialism. And I emigrated to the US in order to get away from self-righteous European bigots like you. The question is why you can't leave us in peace in the US. Why don't you worry about your own benighted country instead of obsessing about everything American?

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Actually, no, that's the people who don't recognize that gender is a social construct, but try to make it a biological imperative, and thus not subject to change.

Something that is a biological imperative doesn't need to be imposed by government. For example, you don't have to make laws to tell people to walk on two legs because everybody already does it.

Sorry, but you're guilty of the offense here. You are the one who supports draconian coercion for any who defy your paradigm.

I'm proposing eliminating all sex and gender distinctions from the law. How is removing laws and restrictions "authoritarian"? How is simply accepting unequal outcomes by gender "authoritarian"?

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

And I fail to follow you. You claim that "Classical liberals (like myself) believe people should choose their gender roles freely", which I have no objections to. You claim that "Societies can function with a small percentage of people who don't conform to their gender roles". This means that you believe that there can be a small number of people who take on the gender roles of the opposite sex (assuming there is an opposite sex, as there is for almost all humans). This should mean that you believe that there can be people who are biologically female in masculine gender roles, and people who are biologically male in feminine gender roles, without problems, as long as the number of such people is small (and it is).

Therefore, it's convenient to have a name for people in masculine gender roles or feminine gender roles, since it doesn't line up precisely with male/female, and you're fine with that under the current circumstances. "Gender" is in common use for this.

Now, you need to find where you learned telepathy and sue for your tuition back. It's failing you badly.

I am the recognized authority on what I believe, so I'll tell you some things I believe.

Gender roles are defined by society. They aren't completely arbitrary, although many things about them are. Masculine and feminine usually go with male and female, respectively. Injustice and oppression do exist in the world, and I'm against them. Therefore, current society is imperfect. Differences in outcomes based on gender or race or whatever are suggestive of differences in opportunity, and should be investigated. (I'm in favor of equality of opportunity.) In this process, we've found a lot of injustice and oppression that was just accepted as normal. Since we'll never be perfect, we should keep investigating differences in outcome.

It's unclear to me what you mean by "authoritarian laws" here. You may be referring to anti-discrimination laws, which do not appear to me to be authoritarian in general, although as with all things there will be cases where the laws are unfairly applied. The Oregon bakers got what they deserved, but I'm not at all comfortable with the Colorado bakery decision. No legal system is perfect. As far as indoctrination, everybody does it. Most people think their view of things is reasonably close to the correct one, and want others to believe it. I've seen people trying to indoctrinate others into believing that gender in the social sense is completely linked to sex in the biological sense, and I disagree with them.

Re:translation

[serviscope_minor]

Blah blah citation needed bro.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Therefore, it's convenient to have a name for people in masculine gender roles or feminine gender roles, since it doesn't line up precisely with male/female, and you're fine with that under the current circumstances. "Gender" is in common use for this.

Correct. But you erroneously conclude from that that gender is a "social construct". It is not. Gender and gender roles are biologically determined, it is just that the mechanism that determines them fails in a small percentage of people.

Therefore, current society is imperfect.

Society is always imperfect. It is also always unfair.

Differences in outcomes based on gender or race or whatever are suggestive of differences in opportunity, and should be investigated.

They have been investigated and the results are clear. First, differences in outcome occur naturally even in the absence of any differences in opportunity or even any genetic differences. Second, the differences in outcome that we see correlate with gender and race specifically are the result of different choices, not different opportunities.

But be that as it may, you are equivocating. Specifically what "differences in opportunities" are you talking about? Where exactly are there documented differences in opportunities based on gender or race? Specifically which government laws discriminate based on gender or race?

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

It's unclear to me what you mean by "authoritarian laws" here. You may be referring to anti-discrimination laws, which do not appear to me to be authoritarian in general,

Of course they are authoritarian. They are saying "we are going to override your freedom of association because we want to achieve specific outcomes for society as a whole". This would be bad enough if there were actual evidence that systematic private discrimination is the cause of unequal outcomes and that government intervention is an effective way of addressing it. But history shows the reverse: government is the cause of systemic discrimination, and it is private actors that best address it, through freedom of association and market mechanisms. Employment discrimination against homosexuals was largely a consequence of the criminalization of homosexuality, and it largely stopped when homosexuality was effectively decriminalized, long before any anti-discrimination laws were passed.

The Oregon bakers got what they deserved, but I'm not at all comfortable with the Colorado bakery decision. No legal system is perfect. As far as indoctrination, everybody does it.

That's an authoritarian speaking. An actual liberal recognizes the right of people to discriminate for any reason or no reason at all; and that right exists not in order to protect bigots and racists, it exists in order to let society deal with bigots and racists through much better mechanisms than legal proceedings. Having the jackboot of government stomp on people who discriminate is not an effective way to change society: it causes resentment rather than acceptance, it drives discrimination underground, and it forces minorities to unknowingly work for people who hate them. I'm quite happy that one of my past employers openly created a hostile work environment (I wasn't out); I quietly left the place and that was the end of it. I didn't even tell them why I quit because I'd much rather see them go down in flames for having such lousy policies. That's the liberal way of dealing with discrimination, and unlike your way, it actually works.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

Society is always imperfect. It is also always unfair.

That was my point. Another part of my point is that I want it to be more fair. Do you, or are you content with leaving injustice there as long as you're comfortable with it?

Where exactly are there documented differences in opportunities based on gender or race? Specifically which government laws discriminate based on gender or race?

You do realize that those are two different questions, I hope. To give a minor but well-documented example of differences in opportunities, researchers have sent out resumes to employers and varied the names on them, including traditional male, traditional female, black-sounding names, things like that. They found that resumes sent with names that look like they belong to white males got responses more often than ones with female-looking or black-looking names. That is not equality of opportunity.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

An actual liberal recognizes that we live in an imperfect society, and that compromises have to be made. Not all good principles can be upheld at all times.

You seem to have completely missed the history of racial discrimination in the US. It didn't go away when laws were abolished. It exists today. When faced with anti-discrimination laws on mortgages, for example, financial institutions resorted to "red-lining" to avoid making loans to blacks. Your beliefs seem to be based on politics rather than reality.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

When faced with anti-discrimination laws on mortgages, for example, financial institutions resorted to "red-lining" to avoid making loans to blacks.

Redlining wasn't banks trying to "avoid making loans to blacks". Why would greedy, money grubbing corporations do that? Banks are interested in profit only.

In fact, redlining was mandated by the National Housing Act of 1934, the FHA, and the creation of federal underwriting guidelines, based on progressive ideas about how to improve society. Now, it is true that after government-mandated redlining ended, banks still didn't want to lend to people in those neighborhoods; but that is because government policies had destroyed those neighborhoods and they were now bad lending risks.

Your beliefs seem to be based on politics rather than reality.

You bet that my belief is based on politics rather than "reality": I believe that private citizens and private organizations have a fundamental right to freedom of association, regardless of the impact that exercising that right has on others.

Fortunately, it turns out that upholding freedom of association also tends to lead to the best outcomes for minorities. The ills people like you attribute to private freedom of association are, in fact, the result of government interference in freedom of association. Your erroneous history of redlining illustrates your confusion again.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

That was my point. Another part of my point is that I want it to be more fair. Do you, or are you content with leaving injustice there as long as you're comfortable with it?

I certainly do want society to be more fair, which is why I help people whenever I can. What I object to is trying to use government to make society "more fair" because that is destined to fail. If you want to improve society, you need to do it through voluntary, private transactions, not through the jackboot of government.

They found that resumes sent with names that look like they belong to white males got responses more often than ones with female-looking or black-looking names. That is not equality of opportunity.

Even if those studies meant what you think they mean, so what? Decades ago, 90% of companies wouldn't hire me because I was a homosexual. Then they wouldn't hire me because I was an immigrant. These days, 90% of Silicon Valley companies won't hire me because I'm a conservative-leaning libertarian. Many minority and women owned businesses wouldn't hire me because I'm a white male. What does it matter? Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that every private business in the world needs to treat everybody exactly the same. And using government to try to force that outcome is incredibly harmful.

And if you're concerned that racial discrimination is so massive that there is a pool of skilled people who can't get a job simply because of their skin color, then you don't need to run to lawmakers in order to fix it, you can fix that problem by yourself and make a tidy profit in the process: hire them.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

In fact, redlining was mandated by the National Housing Act of 1934

Which had no reference to geography, except that S&Ls insured under FSLIC were restricted in issuing mortgages to property over fifty miles from their principle place of business. That isn't redlining. Try again, and remember that I'm perfectly capable of following up references and checking on them.

Fortunately, it turns out that upholding freedom of association also tends to lead to the best outcomes for minorities.

A very sweeping statement. Got any empirical support for it?

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

What it means is that there is inequality of opportunity. One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race. I picked the example because it was well-documented, not because it was major.

I'd suggest that it isn't your politics that turn people off so much as your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs. The Civil Rights Act did indeed make society more fair. There are other examples. You supply no empirical evidence to support your belief.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Which had no reference to geography, except that S&Ls insured under FSLIC were restricted in issuing mortgages to property over fifty miles from their principle place of business

Oh, FFS, stop talking out of your ass:

Although informal discrimination and segregation had existed in the United States, the specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

A very sweeping statement. Got any empirical support for it?

Yeah: a few centuries of history (you should learn some history!) and a few decades actually living under an authoritarian regime.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

What it means is that there is inequality of opportunity [in the progressive sense]. One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race. I picked the example because it was well-documented, not because it was major.

Again, so what? Your implicit assumption is that if government passes laws to try to reduce "inequality of opportunity" (in your sense), then somehow society will improve. But it won't: we have many decades of experience with this from around the world.

One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race.

One individual will not have the same opportunity as another, period. That's true for all individuals.

The Civil Rights Act did indeed make society more fair.

And what did that "more fair" society achieve? Blacks as a group have deteriorated massively on many social indicators. You want to impose tolerance, fairness, and decency on people at the barrel of a gun and that simply doesn't work.

Speaking from personal experience and from mentoring and supporting other immigrants and minorities, the only way minority groups can advance is for minorities to recognize that life isn't fair and deal with it. It means having to work extra hard, overcoming obstacles that other people didn't have to overcome. It's what makes us strong.

I'd suggest that it isn't your politics that turn people off so much as your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs.

My "doctrinaire near-religious beliefs" are based on decades of living as a minority and immigrant, and succeeding despite of it.

I'd suggest you should be more concerned about "your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs", which seem to be rooted in the same kind of progressive fantasy world that many wealthy American techies inhabit. And you should be aware that in real life, people like me just roll our eyes and walk away when encountering people like you.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

You might want to (a) not accuse me of talking out of my ass when making a factual statement relevant to something you said, and (b) read your own cites.

I read the Act you mentioned, and found only one geographical restriction, the one I mentioned.

Your cite (more applicable to what you claimed) indicates that there was already mortgage discrimination going on, and that private parties participated in the redlining. It was partly government discrimination and partly private. Your own quote shows that non-state-sponsored discrimination already existed.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

Also, I do know some history, and plenty of cases of minorities being discriminated against without government requirements. You also may be confusing cause and effect. If a large majority is prejudiced against X people, then laws are likely to be written discriminating against X. Therefore, a lack of laws against X is evidence that the prejudice isn't as severe as a prejudice that does result in laws.

As far as living under an authoritarian regime goes, yes, there are bad governments in the world. That doesn't mean all government is bad.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Your cite (more applicable to what you claimed) indicates that there was already mortgage discrimination going on, and that private parties participated in the redlining.

No, it stated that there was mortgage discrimination going on, but that actual redlining started with the FHA. Redlining is not the same as other forms of racial discrimination.

Your own quote shows that non-state-sponsored discrimination already existed.

No, it doesn't show that either. In fact, racial discrimination in the US was overwhelmingly the result of US government policies: Jim Crow laws, New Deal policies, government-mandates segregation, the teaching of eugenics and scientific racism in public schools, etc. Private discrimination in the US has always been largely secondary to such government policies.

You might want to (a) not accuse me of talking out of my ass when making a factual statement relevant to something you said, and (b) read your own cites.

You still don't know what you're talking about.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

and plenty of cases of minorities being discriminated against without government requirements

Of course minorities are discriminated against privately, all the time. But private discrimination by itself isn't a significant problem. This may be hard to grasp if you have never experienced it.

If a large majority is prejudiced against X people, then laws are likely to be written discriminating against X.

We don't have to guess at that, we know why the racist laws of the progressive era were written: they were written because eminent academics and intellectuals argued that blacks were inferior and needed to be treated differently for their own good and the good of society, and because powerful constituencies (like unions) wanted to reduce competition from cheap black labor. This isn't a wild guess, it's what proponents of these policies stated on the record.

Racism and racist laws in the US (and in most other places) weren't driven by the prejudices of the uneducated or working class (who generally had and have a lot of contact with minorities), they were driven by educated, progressive elites. That mirrors what happened with slavery: slavery wasn't something uneducated white working class folks wanted, it was something wealthy elites wanted. And it mirrors what we see today, with wealthy "liberal" elites again pushing for policies that categorize people by race and treat them differently, of course, as always, with only the best of intentions!

As far as living under an authoritarian regime goes, yes, there are bad governments in the world. That doesn't mean all government is bad.

I didn't say that "all government is bad". I said that government that respects freedom of association is good for minorities, while government that categorizes people by race or minority status is bad for minorities.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

If I were replying to your post in detail, there's be a lot of [Citation Needed]s in it.

Private discrimination includes lynching, which is very definitely not government-mandated, and that was significant at time over a century ago. That may be hard to grasp if you've only experienced relatively mild private discrimination.

From what I've been able to tell, the uneducated and working class are the more racist members of society. The Republican "southern strategy" was a deliberate attempt to draw racists into the Republican Party, and it didn't work by exploiting the prejudices of the educated and wealthy. Your claim that unions sought to oppress blacks because they feared competition from cheap black labor doesn't pass the smell test: if they wanted to reduce the competition, they'd have organized the blacks and brought them into unions. I don't trust what proponents of policies say on the record. Policy-makers often have hidden agendas.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Private discrimination includes lynching, which is very definitely not government-mandated

That statement implies that your moral problem with lynchings is that they are discriminatory. Apparently, lynchings would be alright with you if they had been applied equally to poor whites and poor blacks! In fact, the moral problem with lynchings is that they are murder, regardless of the race of the victim.

The Republican "southern strategy" was a deliberate attempt to draw racists into the Republican Party

Oft repeated, but false.

Your claim that unions sought to oppress blacks because they feared competition from cheap black labor doesn't pass the smell test: if they wanted to reduce the competition, they'd have organized the blacks and brought them into unions

That's indeed what Democrats and unions started doing in the 1960's, when they found out that they couldn't use racism to their political advantage anymore and instead started exploiting economic divisions for political gain. Since unions were dominated by Democrats, it's not surprising that they underwent the same kind of shift. But the racist history of unions and minimum wage laws is not debatable; it's historical fact.

From what I've been able to tell, the uneducated and working class are the more racist members of society.

What I said was that "Racism and racist laws in the US (and in most other places) weren't driven by the prejudices of the uneducated or working class (who generally had and have a lot of contact with minorities), they were driven by educated, progressive elites." That is, significant portions of the working class may have been quite racist (after all, lots of them were unionized and Democrats, so a lot of those people were certainly racist), but they didn't drive racist laws or racist public policies; racist policies were the responsibility of educated elites. That's not subject to debate or interpretation, it's documented fact.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. I used to be a progressive myself. I just picked up history books and started reading, and it turns out that a lot of the propaganda used by Democrats and progressives is false.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

My moral problem with lynchings is that they existed. The fact that they're murder means they're significant, and the fact that the victims were normally black shows private racial discrimination. That's significant private racial discrimination, as I said. If lynchings were of a racial mix similar to the population, they wouldn't suggest racial discrimination, although they'd still be murder.

I don't consider anything from mises.org to be undebatable historical fact. Your cite says that minimum wage laws changed the nature of discrimination, not that they caused discrimination. The article specifically said that the laws changed discriminatory wages to discriminatory employment.

BTW, we have a class of people in this country exploiting economic divisions for gain, and it's not the lower or middle classes. There is class warfare going on, and the rich are currently winning.

Your cite from the Harvard Review describes (as far as I could tell in a quick skim) the role of the educated elite in discriminator eugenics programs reasonably correctly. This fails to describe large quantities of other discriminatory legislation or private discrimination.

Lots of policies, historically, have been put into practice because they're popular, to get votes. Much of the current tough-on-crime crap going on is because it attracts more voters than a more realistic soft-on-crime position.

I can't really look up YouTube cites at work, but Wikipedia has a reasonably good article on the Southern Strategy, including quotes.

If you're going to try to learn anything from history, I suggest dropping the "not subject to debate or interpretation" concept. Historical facts may be undebatable, but interpretations change, and the interpretations are far more important than memorizing historical facts individually.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

My moral problem with lynchings is that they existed. The fact that they're murder means they're significant, and the fact that the victims were normally black shows private racial discrimination. That's significant private racial discrimination, as I said.

The total number of lynchings in the US (over a century) was around 5000. That pales in comparison to the massive death toll among blacks and minorities that is the result of US government policies. So even if your interpretation of lynchings as solely caused by "private racial discrimination" were true, it still fails to show that tolerating private discrimination is more harmful than government intervention. But, of course, the reason lynchings happened was in large part due to racist indoctrination by government and intellectuals at the time in the first place. That is, Democrats and progressives said what they always say "you are not being treated fairly, get angry, and go out and hurt someone"; back then, they said it to whites, these days they say it to blacks.

I don't consider anything from mises.org to be undebatable historical fact. Your cite says that minimum wage laws changed...

I didn't cite it for the debate on minimum wage laws; I cited it because it gave original sources on racism among union leaders. I suggest you follow up on it. Really, for you to deny that unions were racist is absurd in light of historical fact.

but interpretations change, and the interpretations are far more important than memorizing historical facts individually.

Yeah, and the interpretation you would like is that the massive racism and injustice perpetrated by Democrats, progressives, and unions is forgotten and projected onto Republicans, classical liberals, and the wealthy. It wouldn't even matter if we were just debating distant historical facts, but the problem is that Democrats and progressives are still racist and destructive in pretty much the same way, and that they are blaming the failures of their policies onto others.

More blacks are murdered per year today than were lynched in the history of the US. And it isn't "the wealthy" or Republicans or white supremacists who are killing them or creating the conditions that kills them, it's the policies and institutions of Democrats and progressives that are responsible for these killings, as well as poverty, inequality, and hopelessness.

Although you yourself seem simply ignorant, you are making excuses for racists and bigots. As I was saying: I understand where you are coming from, I used to be a Democrat and a progressive myself. That is also how I know how profoundly wrong you are: I know all your arguments, I used to make them myself.

Re:translation

[david_thornley]

Distributing the lynchings over a century doesn't help; they were pretty heavily front-loaded in that century. Nor is that the only problem stemming from private discrimination; I included it as an obvious example.

I'm well aware that unions were racist at that time period. Pretty much everyone was. You know why Jackie Robinson was picked to be the first black player in 20th-century Major League Baseball? Not only was he an excellent player, the people who made the decision thought he could handle the hate and death threats better than most. Decades later, the amount of hate mail and threats Hank Aaron faced when threatening Babe Ruth's record of total career home runs was appalling. Racism was not from the top down in society; it permeated it. Racist laws were popular, much as tough-on-crime and think-of-the-children laws are now, and were passed because people wanted them.

You seem keen to see racism among unions, Democrats, and progressives, but you don't seem to see it among Republicans, conservatives, etc. Given the period of history we're considering, that's prejudiced partial blindness. You seem blind to the documented realities of the Southern Strategy.

Hispanics tend to be religious conservatives. They vote Democrat. Ever wonder why? It's because they don't feel welcome in the Republican party, which is basically the white Christian party. (They're getting more desperate as part of the demographic shift. Non-Hispanic white Christians are no longer a majority in the US.) If the Republicans ever decide to act for the benefit of Christian conservatives in general, they'll get a real boost from Hispanics.

While some Democrat/progressive policies have been harmful, a lot of Republican/conservative policies have been also. The War on Drugs was heavily Republican-backed, for example.

Re:translation

[ooloorie]

Nor is that the only problem stemming from private discrimination; I included it as an obvious example.

We're discussing whether private or government discrimination causes more harm. From personal experience as an oppressed gay male immigrant, I have told you that in my experience, government discrimination is far worse. You have disputed that but so far not made a rational argument to support that. It's not sufficient to list examples of private discrimination to establish your claim.

I'm well aware that unions were racist at that time period. Pretty much everyone was.

No, that's absolutely not true. Large numbers of Republicans, classical liberals, and Christians strongly believed in equal rights and equality of all humans at the same time as Democrats and progressives were pursuing their racist and authoritarian policies.

You seem keen to see racism among unions, Democrats, and progressives, but you don't seem to see it among Republicans, conservatives, etc. Given the period of history we're considering, that's prejudiced partial blindness.

You keep mixing up public policy and private beliefs. You're saying the racially discriminatory policies that Democrats and progressives ran on are balanced out by the racist beliefs you suspect everybody had. But that's absolutely wrong. There is a big difference for the government to pass laws against mixed marriages or to pass laws mandating discrimination on the one hand, and private disapproval or discrimination on the other hand. One of the most important differences is that the market can alleviate and eliminate private discrimination, but government mandated discrimination cannot be legally avoided by anyone.

You seem blind to the documented realities of the Southern Strategy.

Documented where? Where is the evidence that Republicans explicitly appealed to racism in order to swell their ranks in the South? And if that was the strategy, it didn't work: Republicans only overtook Democrats in the South decades later. And the reason for that is the opposite of what you believe: it's not that Republicans attracted a large pool of racist Southern whites from the Democrats, it's that racism had diminished in the South to the point that most whites now felt comfortable voting for Republicans.

Hispanics tend to be religious conservatives. They vote Democrat. Ever wonder why? It's because they don't feel welcome in the Republican party, which is basically the white Christian party.

The Republican party is indeed largely a party of "white Christians"; that's because white Christians tend to do the things that make you succeed in society: they finish high school, get married, raise kids in a two parent household, and save money for the future. If you do those things, you'll demonstrably succeed in the US regardless of race. And if you do those things, you are welcome in the Republican party, regardless of race. But the illegitimacy rate is 75% among blacks and 50% among Hispanics (hence not religious conservatives), compared to 30% among whites, which is why we have these racial disparities both in outcomes and among Republican voters. And it's Democratic and progressive policies that have destroyed the black family, caused a massive rise in crime, and massive intergenerational welfare dependency.

Only certain types of "hate speech"

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

They'll just follow the usual SJW rule which is "group X is incapable of $type_of_bigotry because they don't have 'power.'" See, if a black man grabs a white man and beats him to death screaming direct racial epithets along the way, that's not racist to them because the black man is a minority thus has no power, thus cannot be racist. Meanwhile, if a white guy from a trailer park, on SS disability screams "die n----" and shoots a super-rich black man that is totally racist because as a white man the trailer park denizen has white privilege.

This is why if actual Communists ever, God forbid, take power, I will have absolutely no sympathy for many of our kulaks (historically, "liberals" and "progressives" were about as hated by actual Communists as monarchists).

Re:Only certain types of "hate speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Africans are clearly a MAJORITY compared to white people. White people are now less than 10% of the world's population, AND our countries are all being invaded by millions of non-whites - i.e. we are being denied one of the most basic human rights of all - the right to continue to exist. If immigration into white countries continues at the rate it is now, and non-whites are NOT deported from white countries, white people will become a minority and then cease to exist. It's genocide, plain and simple.

Why are millions of non-whites moving to white countries every year? Why don't they want to live around their own kind?
Even more importantly, why AREN'T millions of white people moving to non-white countries every year, if we all want to live as white minority in a non-white country? (Which is what the Left are telling us we should want, by calling us 'racist' for speaking out against mass immigration.)

Re:Only certain types of "hate speech"

[backwardsposter]

I just can't stand the hypocritical belief that you can't judge someone based on their color/gender, unless that person is a specific color of gender. You can't say everyone is different and then expect to be able to treat people based on what they look like different ways.

Stereotypes and statistics are good for looking at things en mass, and people are afraid of that. What they mean to do and are completely and utterly failing at is pointing out that people have to be treated as individuals. Just because your characteristics put you somewhere in statistical data doesn't mean your not the outlier and so you should be treated on neutral ground because of that.

Can you statistically guess based on a crime the color/gender? More often than not. Can you guess based on the person you meet, absolutely not.

No, bad

[Roger W Moore]

No, their kind needs to be educated as to why they are so wrong. Silencing them is the equivalent of taking painkillers, instead of antibiotics, for an infection: it might make the immediate symptoms go away but if you don't treat the cause things will end up going very badly.

Re:No, bad

[BlueStrat]

No, their kind needs to be educated as to why they are so wrong.

See, that's where you assume too much.

To far too many people it doesn't matter if those who disagree are right or wrong, or even if they & their own side is right or wrong.

They are simply an enemy, to be destroyed. That tribal instinct at work. When it's active it shuts out other rational cognitive processes.

Strat

Re:No, bad

[Roger W Moore]

That sounds good to me - I can defend a position about why the beliefs expressed in hate speech are extremely wrong (real hate speech mind you, not the "I have managed to twist what you said until I found a way to be offended by it" variety). The point is that we should be engaging in discussion so that both sides get to make their arguments and we can try and correct each other's areas of ignorance and understand the issues better. Silencing someone just because you vehemently disagree with them is wrong and because it stops each side from understanding the other it ends up making things far worse in the end.

More Problematic

[Roger W Moore]

It's even more problematic than that. If they have an AI algorithm which can understand human language they have the ability to filter out anything they do not like, not just hate speech and to misquote Agent Smith from the Matrix: "what good is the right to free speech if you are unable to speak?".

Re:More Problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

Language is always changing. Just look at how street slang and porn terminology changes the meaning of words and phrases. They'll end up banning cooking recipes and road accident reports.

Re:More Problematic

[Roger W Moore]

Initially, yes, but as algorithms and computing power improve there will come a time where it will be as good as, or better than, a human doing the same job. At this point AI censorship will be cheap and easy enough to do that pretty much anyone can do it.

Congress ??

[backslashdot]

Why is it congress business whether or not facebook is regulating hate speech? Facebook shouldnt be told what it needs to do in that regard. Government has no right to tell facebook whether it should or shouldnâ(TM)t prevent hate speech. Eventually givernment will force facebook to only put pro-government stuff everything else will be declared fake!

Re:Congress ??

[CaptainDork]

The fallacy is that you fail to consider OTHER government's (and Columbia Analytica) contamination of the social media platform(s ... all).

Re:Congress ??

[LifesABeach]

Congress makes the laws, you will learn that in middle school.

Re:Congress ??

[jedidiah]

> The fallacy is that you fail to consider OTHER government's (and Columbia Analytica) contamination of the social media platform(s ... all).

It's a global network. Everyone is allowed to play.

If you really think that some underfunded Russians can really do better than the Koch Brothers or Bloomberg, or the entire liberal media and Hollywood then you really have a low opinion of America.

It's much like our surface navies facing off.

Re:Congress ??

[CaptainDork]

It's a global network. Everyone is allowed to play.

WAS allowed to. That's the fucking point of the investigation.

If you really think ...

Doesn't matter what I think. The facts speak for themselves.

It's much like our surface navies facing off.

It's not like that at all.

Re:Congress ??

[AHuxley]

States had laws on inviting people into open private areas and allowing some political speech and not others.
A neutral public forum.
What was selective enforcement.

Re:Congress ??

[king neckbeard]

What facts? Clinton basically became being less popular than cancer by the time the public remembered hearing her talk. She lost to a black dude with a Muslim sounding name and then had to rig a primary to beat an angry, disheveled Jew. The fact is that Clinton was basically the worst choice for a candidate, and she made many horrible decisions, allowing her to lose the right parts of the country to bungling orange moron.

Re:Congress ??

[CaptainDork]

Get off the sauce, OK?

What in Sam Hill are you talking about?

Re:Congress ??

[king neckbeard]

I never said that both parties didn't shit the bed on this election.

Re:Congress ??

[king neckbeard]

Clinton didn't lose because of Russian intervention. Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who made bad decision after bad decision. Those are the facts that "speak for themselves."

Re:Congress ??

[CaptainDork]

Who the fuck, in the context of this thread, gives a flying shit?

You're off topic.

Kick the can ...

[CaptainDork]

... down the road.

I Can Do It Faster

[LifesABeach]

Shut down FaceBook severs until the zuc-up solves it.

Who decides: The hackers

[SuperKendall]

I greatly look forward to the World Neural Hate Net being trained to label all non-Nazi speech as hate speech. Any image posted without a swastika? Banned globally.

It's not a free speech issue

[rsilvergun]

if the government isn't the one cracking down. As always, you have a right to say whatever you want. You don't have a right to make somebody pay for the megaphone.

That said, if you want free Megaphones how about making the Internet a free public utility?

Re: It's not a free speech issue

[nowwith25percentmore]

I find your remark to be hate speech against my free speech beliefs. Your move.

Re:It's not a free speech issue

[NicknameUnavailable]

Corporations are not entities save for the government saying they are. The government doesn't have the right to censor, so they cannot grant that right.

Re:It's not a free speech issue

[fafalone]

It absolutely is a free speech issue. What it's not is a 1st Amendment issue. But it's rapidly becoming one, even though we're talking about private entities. The government threatens ruinous investigations, forcing self-censorship (following the news this week?), that's a valid 1A issue.

Does that count ?

[Archfeld]

I hate to hear Zuckerberg speak, does that count ?

I don't think Facebook can be a bubble

[rsilvergun]

progressive or otherwise. If their user #s are to be believed just about everybody in the country with internet access has an account. If it's a bubble we're all in it.

Nor is there any evidence that Facebook or anyone else is cracking down on any of the things you've sighted. Most of the beliefs you're post outlined and/or represent belong to the right wing, and last I check the right wing party is in control of all branches of the government. It's kind of silly to play the victim card when your side literally won everything.

It's also kind of funny to see someone so opposed to identity politics playing the "Stright White Male" card. There's a joke about IMAX projectors in there somewhere I'm not clever enough to make.

Re:I don't think Facebook can be a bubble

[ooloorie]

progressive or otherwise. If their user #s are to be believed just about everybody in the country with internet access has an account. If it's a bubble we're all in it.

I have an account; that doesn't mean I do anything more than check my messages on Facebook every few weeks. I'm pretty typical there among the people I know.

Most of the beliefs you're post outlined and/or represent belong to the right wing,

I didn't post any "beliefs". I identified categories of statements that likely get you censored on Facebook.

It's also kind of funny to see someone so opposed to identity politics playing the "Stright White Male" card

I'm not a straight white male, so I'm not sure in what way I would be "playing a card". I'm simply pointing out a racial and gender distinction that progressives make. I am opposed to all political distinctions based on race and gender, so I disapprove of that.

It's kind of silly to play the victim card when your side literally won everything.

By "my side", you mean the side of liberalism and reason, the side of political independents and mainstream voters? I mean, I used to be a registered Democrat until the 2016 election, now I'm just an independent and swing voter.

And I'm not a victim. I have survived in the face of much worse bigots and jerks than you or the luminaries in the Democratic party. I'm simply telling you that it would be nice if 25% of the US population, people like you, would stop being such partisans, jerks and bigots and rejoin civil society again. If I, as a gay man and immigrant, can overcome the Democratic party indoctrination, so can you.

Uninstalled FB from my phone, cleared my browser..

[bigmacx]

I'm done with being a regular user of the FB echo chamber. That Musk Vimeo was great and finally convinced me to end my daily, no constant, connection to FB. I left a pub note for people to just call or SMS text me from now on (didn't post my actual number, derr) and that I'd log on occasionally to check new FR. I will say the one thing I've always liked about FB is how way-back contacts can re-connect. I guess that may only be an issue for those older than millennials.

The entire thing is now an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance cage.

I did create a new sterile FB account to manage the FB pages I have for work and a few non-profits. That's a different thing to me than my personal stuff...

Mark Zuckerberg said FB users are Dumb fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dumb fucks." That's all one need know when it comes to Facebook.

The infamous chat:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

an Example.

[thesupraman]

God Damn I hate f#!@%! hate speech!

Did I get it right?

Sure it will

[Charcharodon]

Highly doubt Facebook will be around in 5-10 years. If planetary years were internet years it would be like saying that Earth will be around in a few million, billion, gazillion years.

I give even odds that Facebook will begin collapsing by the end of 2018 and be on par with CNN for political/cultural relevancy by 2020. (Nearly none)

My prediction

[duke_cheetah2003]

Oh Zuckyboy there is right on the money, though he's short-changing himself by a few years. I don't think Facebook is even going to be a thing for a heck of a lot longer. This is a mortal wound. I don't see a scenario that has Facebook looking pretty in a few years time. So yeah, hate speech gunna be gone from Facebook, cuz Facebook will be gone.

Good riddance. Twitter next please.

You just don't want to see it

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Take the case of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. Or that autistic guy who was tortured live on Facebook this time last year. People like you, yes, like you, are ideologically invested in the idea that it doesn't happen to white people.

Afrikaners get murdered on a regular basis in South Africa by blacks still angry about apartheid. Doesn't get reported either.

A lot of the "anti-black hate crimes" that show up in the media turn out to be hoaxes, just like a lot of the time it turns out that when the facts are in most police shootings are reasonably justified.

There is no poor, pathetic oppressed class and a big oppressor class on issues like this. There are just assholes and their victims. Turns out a lot of black people are assholes just like a lot of white people are.

Re:You just don't want to see it

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read/hear someone saying "but they do it too!" or linking crime statistics of blacks vs whites, it really makes me sad :( Depressing to see how far removed people can be from the actual issues. Go spend some time at a black community center, get to know your fellow humans. While i entirely disagree with the statement 'there is no poor, pathetic oppressed class and a big oppressor class'- I wholeheartedly agree that you can simplify it as 'just assholes and their victims' and that there are certainly assholes in both races. I grew up in the inner-city (as a white kid) and I've personally witness how cops treated my black friends compared to the way the treated me for the same crimes. I promise you there is definitely a race issue in the criminal justice system and that it's being used to oppress minorities.

Re:So when was the last time that happened?

[thesupraman]

i know you wont, because it doesnt fit your worldview, but have a look at this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/white-black-crime-vs-black-white-crime-new-statistics-show-more-killings-between-2424598
Now, imagine what those stats look like if adjusted for total population..

Of course you are going to play silly qualitative games claiming 'but none of those black on white killings are because of race'
Believe what you will, however it is pretty common street knowledge that black gangs target whites because they are less likely
to resist violently, tend to carry more money, and deserve it more - and that is pretty much racism.

But no, your unverified single anecdote trumps decades of facts, doesnt it.

BTW, Yes, I know quite a few 'real' (maxist) communists, and even a real trotskiest.
The more serious 'believers' are very very much in touch with the fact that communism has a fatal flaw in implementation because it
centralises power excessively, and they know what that directly leads to.

As you obvious see Stalin and Mao as exceptions, perhaps you would like to point to the happy successful well balanced communist state?

The problem isnt left or right, it is totalitarianism, and anyone screaming for power for THEIR ONE TRUE BELIEF is pretty solidly in that camp from
my point of view.

People are getting smarter :)

[wolfheart111]

It'll take a few years but folks will learn and things will get better. The idea is to think like a computer lol

Supreme court says no such thing as Hate speech

[bricko]

Apparently many have missed to recent Supreme Court decision - There is no such thing as hate speech https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This isn't the government we're talking about

[rsilvergun]

it's Facebook, a private company. And I suspect the filters of one of the largest and most sophisticated data mining apparatuses out there would be a damn sight better than what you've previously experienced.

If you want a good idea of why hate speech is a bad thing go read Bruce Sterling's Distraction. Or just consider that old quote about a meddlesome priest. The right words delivered to the right nut job can do scary things. I don't blame Facebook for not wanting to be a party to that.

Re: This isn't the government we're talking about

[reanjr]

But human beings can't even agree on what hate speech is; how are we going to train an A.I. to do such a thing?

This is not about Facebook

[Newton IV]

Zuckerberg does not give a fuck about hate speech. He feeds Congress what they want to hear (and he better information on that than most of us), so that they get off his back with privacy and monopoly. And that is bad news: it means that Congress really want to regulate internet speech.

Ok, let's google some of that

[rsilvergun]

Here's the first one. There's no evidence it was a hate crime. Even the right wing bloggers were just complaining the media didn't cover it enough because it was black on white crime.

The second one wasn't a hate crime because it was blacks and a white. It was because it was a bunch of assholes attacking an Autistic man. Again, not Blacks attacking "Whitey". Still a hate crime, but their skin color was irrelevant.

I don't know enough about South Africa to say if you're right or wrong there. The entire place is a hell hole though, and whites are in a minority. And if it's one thing I know about minorities it's that they often get screwed. So you might be right.

I'll counter your final anecdote with my own. My bro married a black woman, and one day when they were dating he ran a red light late at night. She was utterly terrified and he couldn't understand why. The reason was she was terrified of the police, as any interaction with them can and often did turn violent. I've been pulled over more than once myself for driving with black and my best friend, a black truck driver, had trouble getting routes because his dispatcher didn't like sending him down south. And let's not forget legislating while black. Or Mississippi's 2010 anti gang law To be fair those last two aren't anecdotes since they've got sources...

Being black in America is a very, very different life.

new improved packaging

[epine]

Facebook will cure 2018 hate speech in 2023 or 2028. If the planet still exists in 2028.

Somehow, I don't think Zuck factored into his estimate that arms races are two-way streets.

And another factor: in Arab cultures, young men sexualize extremely minor details of women's behaviours and dress. As the loudness declines, the gain increases.

Nevertheless, Facebook will declare this an objective victory. Meanwhile, hate will persist on a cholesterol-reduced diet with fewer words identified by a single letter, and lesser thickets of exclamation marks.

So at least we can expect hate to become less ugly, undigested.

Small victory, I suppose, had he promised it next year.

I've very confused

[rsilvergun]

did you read the article you posted?

white-on-black killings spiked by 22.5 percent between 2014 and 2015 after years of mostly trending downward. Killings of whites by African Americans increased by 12.2 percent

White people killing blacks is increasing at a higher rate than the other way around. But that said _both_ are increasing. The point the article is hinting at is that the toxic atmosphere created by the right wing (especially Trump and the alt right) are increasing racially motivated violence. The article also points out that a record number of young black men were killed by police officers.

The Article supports the "world view" that blacks are getting the short end of the stick. Also that we (the working class) are being made to fight among ourselves while the rich and powerful take everything for themselves.

And yes, totalitarianism is a problem. But it comes in many forms. here's one of them now.

You _are_ being oppressed. But it's not by Trotskey & Lenin's ghost or the fat chick who runs your Community College's women's study's program and gets all SJW up in your grill. Billionaires and multi-millionaires like the Koch Bros, Bloomberg and yes the Clintons & the Trumps are the ones oppressing you (and me). I wish folks like you could wake up to that fact so we could stop fighting among ourselves and fix these damn problems once and for all.

Facebook AI Will Curb Free Speech In 5 To 10 Years

[JayAEU]

there, fixed.

Great!

[Opportunist]

Just to think, we get hate speech eliminating AI and cold fusion in the same year!

Re:Sarcasm

[Opportunist]

Of course. Sarcasm requires brainpower at the receiving end, and who'd want that?

Will curb hate in 10-15, war in 15-20

[sabbede]

and produce utopia within 25.

Right?

Re:So when was the last time that happened?

[mjwx]

BTW, Yes, I know quite a few 'real' (maxist) communists, and even a real trotskiest. The more serious 'believers' are very very much in touch with the fact that communism has a fatal flaw in implementation because it centralises power excessively, and they know what that directly leads to.

I find the same thing with talking to religious people vs actual priests/clergy. A Clergyman has spend years studying their religion and has come to grips with the parts that don't make sense and they'll openly talk about the flaws in their beliefs. Lay preachers and puritans who've never studied their belief in depth are the ones who become quite angry when you point out the flaw in their reasoning.

Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb

[gx5000]

StoryLine : Zuckerberg Testimony: Facebook AI Will Curb Hate Speech In 5 To 10 Years.

Reality : Facebook will have been replaced by another Free Speech App within 5 to 10 Years.

6mo. revision cycle...

[ElitistWhiner]

...puts 5 yr timeline out 10th generation to 20 generations in software lifecycle

They already do this in Germany

[WillAffleckUW]

It's a requirement, and FB makes a profit in Germany.

They also are being forced to comply with EU and Canadian rights of privacy.

They make a profit there too.

This is a shell game. He wants you to pay for him to do it, but he can already do it and make a profit.

Hate Speech

[Chas]

FB is going to curb it.

Yet Zuck cannot define it when questioned.
Well, he COULD, but he'd look like a complete fucking idiot doing so.

But he knows it when he sees it!

Oh please!

Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

[OrangeTide]

Maybe you don't know what the definition of hate speech is and have chosen to take the two words you do know as literally as possible?

Sup cuz

[OrangeTide]

I'm not Jewish, but all people are cousins if you go back far enough. And that's good enough for me.

Stop the symptom focus...

[martinfb]

Fix society's woes and hate speech goes away.

Until then, there will always be hate speech cropping up somewhere. You cannot stop it with censorship.

until then

[bobmajdakjr]

it will probably keep accidentally posting the hate speech itself like microsoft tay lol

Can AI curb

[NewYork]

Machiavellianism(manipulate/deceive others),Narcissism(egotism/self-obsession),Psychopathy(lack of remorse/empathy),Sadism(pleasure in suffering of others)