Slashdot Mirror
More Than 50 Nations Launch 'Paris Call' To Fix Hate Speech and Cyberattacks; China and Russia Not Among Signatories, Trump Administration Reluctant To Sign (reuters.com)
French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday launched a push to regulate the internet.
France and U.S. technology giants, including Microsoft, are pushing for governments and companies worldwide to sign up for a new initiative aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship. A report adds: With the launch of a declaration entitled the 'Paris call for trust and security in cyberspace,' French President Emmanuel Macron is hoping to revive efforts to regulate cyberspace after the last round of United Nations negotiations failed in 2017.
In the document, which is supported by many European countries but, crucially, not China or Russia, the signatories urge governments to beef up protections against cyber meddling in elections and prevent the theft of trade secrets. The Paris call was initially pushed for by tech companies but was redrafted by French officials to include work done by U.N. experts in recent years. [...] In another sign of the Trump administration's reluctance to join international initiatives it sees as a bid to encroach on U.S. sovereignty, French officials said Washington might not become a signatory, though talks are continuing.
In the document, which is supported by many European countries but, crucially, not China or Russia, the signatories urge governments to beef up protections against cyber meddling in elections and prevent the theft of trade secrets. The Paris call was initially pushed for by tech companies but was redrafted by French officials to include work done by U.N. experts in recent years. [...] In another sign of the Trump administration's reluctance to join international initiatives it sees as a bid to encroach on U.S. sovereignty, French officials said Washington might not become a signatory, though talks are continuing.
So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???
"aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship"
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
They'll have to make up their minds, they can't have both.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Speech is NOT an emotion. There is no such thing as "hate speech"
Either you have free speech or you don't.
Trying to label "some" speech as hate speech is nothing more then censorship. PERIOD.
--
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh at "taboo" subjects.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
So we're going to fight "hate speech" and at the same time fight "online censorship"? Oh, this should be good....
Is a farce and its just a code word to restrict your free speech. Don't fall for it.
As usual, socialists are showing their true colors.
Who decides what is hate speech?????
I see where this is going, and it's not pretty. They're trying to put the Internet genie back into the bottle.
I've never seen a sentence fight so hard with itself for meaning.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They won't quit until infowars.com and dailystormer.name are forced onto the dank web.
I did. I also noticed that /. somehow forgot the censorship and YRO icons, as they often do on certain stories.
You remember the stories about the Spanish Inquisition? In those day you couldn't be openly atheist. Same goes now, you can be unbeliever in certain things. Those days the crime was heresy, now it's revamped as "hate speech"
Luckily the internet is constructed in a way that makes effective regulation of communication nearly impossible. I guess it's symptomatic that such an effort comes from a country that decided to forbid cryptography.
Give it up already. You're incapable of even articulating a tiny bit of actual support for what you just said. Who exactly does President Trump promote hatred against?
I'm waiting.
Right about now what you're typing in response is going to be about hurt feelings over criticism of actions, which is very, very different from hate. Of course, hate to rage-blinded leftists consists of simply disagreeing with them so there's that.
“France and U.S. technology giants .. are pushing for governments and companies worldwide to sign up for a new initiative aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship”
And they're going to do this by censoring the Internet.
banning hate speech / online censorship is an 1st amendment issue.
And it's way to easy for political ads to fall under hate speech that would rocket the case up to the us supreme court.
I'm pretty sure that Hillary would have been champing at the bit to sign on to this ridiculous accord. Trump is not. So... We lucked out?
...when the voices of reason are coming from Russia and China.
You know what's greedy? Stealing other people's money at the point of a gun, Karl.
The Internet is completely centralized and censored already. You cannot load a single page without being harassed with an eternal series of Google-hosted images to click in the correct manner. There is no Internet left.
And therefore, we should regulate and censor the internet.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head so many times as an infant?
https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_...
canadian prime minister justin trudeau pushes his way to the front of the line screaming "look at me! look at me! it's current year!" so he can be first to sign up, and stick his nose up at trump.
all while saying attacks on media threaten democracy. it only threatens his leftist "democracy" because leftist media is being attacked.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Indeed, give it up.
The censorship is being promoted and enacted on by large corporate entities with those who tend to lean left politically that support such causes.
Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this. Unless you want to make him a reason for this sort of petty reaction by others.
Truths that are to discomforting for bleeding hearts to swallow, thus they turn into tyrants and authoritarians.
The hateful enemy, or bad man is in the mirror.
The greed is in your media corporate entities.
It is you who hopes and asks for opression.
Thankfully Trump's distrust and dislike of them will block this from taking hold in the US. This is a classic example of a power grab "for the greater good" by nation's that do not believe in the freedom of speech.
To censor hate speech, they will need to put people in charge of what is hate speech, which naturally they will define to increase their power. And to enable those people to take action, they'll have to have a controlling stake of key parts of the internet.
As for calling out China for not people a part of this, why the hell would they care? They already enforce such behaviors in their nation to great effect. I can only wonder if this request was modeled after such a disgusting setup.
In another sign of the Trump administration's reluctance to join international initiatives it sees as a bid to encroach on U.S. sovereignty, French officials said Washington might not become a signatory, though talks are continuing.
That's funny, it actually would make sense for Washington to not be a signatory as it goes against the very foundations of the United States.
It's not "a bid to encroach on U.S. sovereignty" when the thing being lauded is against the Constitution.
Hardly ever use the word but it's so relevant here. 'We must suspend free speech in order to protect free speech' Yep. Re-Tar-Ded
It all goes back to education, when a person with a well rounded education (including liberal arts/history...) sees bad information it is like seeing red blinking text in a WEB Page.
Since education quality and funding has been reduced to bare bones in the US and with some countries worse off, you get many people believing every sensational/outrageous thing on the net. How about giving people a good education now. Eventually even the teachers will be no-educated at the rate we are going.
And other pro-American internet bastions if things like hatespeech, censorship and propaganda was not allowed? Well, it would certainly be a better internet.
Pick one. You can't fight both.
I suppose they could be lying though. But there's plenty of folks in America complaining about Alex Jones or Gab getting censored. And if China's not signing on then I'm inclined to think they're serious about combating online censorship.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Only way to "fix" hate speech is to remove it completely and move us closer to free speech like we are supposed to have in our "enlightened" world.
That's some simplistic garbage you're spewing there. Care to think about your statement for more than a few seconds?
I don't respond to AC's.
Hate speech, e.g. outright calls for violence, is and should be illegal in all civilized societies. Making threats, including thinly veiled ones, illegal isn't so much censorship as preserving public order.
If you want to have a conversation about something but you can't do it without threats of violence then be prepared to give up the rest of the trappings of civilized society. Sometimes that's necessary (like a revolution) but most of the time it's just political violence and terrorism.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Some interconnected social credit between users over the large US social media brands?
Create the wrong kind of funny political video and all big brand social media gets a report on that EU user?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
post a threat to kill the president of the United States and see how long until you get a visit from Uncle Sam and his G-Men.
There's nothing wrong with censoring threats of violence, and I saw nothing in the articles to indicate anything more was being proposed. Now, to be fair both articles were lite on substance but we could do with a bit more of a swing in the other direction. Where I am (America) we've got bi-weekly mass shootings and daily shootings, many of which are racially motivated. I'm getting more than a bit nervous and I'm a white guy. I don't want us being the next Reich.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't even know which of these APKs (if any) is real any more. It's quite possible that Pete died years ago and now it's just a bunch of ACs pretending to be him and arguing with each other. How could anyone really tell the difference?
you can't possibly be serious with this question...
Facebook censored a female minority's campaign ads during this midterm. It already happened and appears to target women and minorities. But hey, Facebook is a DNC supporting organization and oppressing those kinds of people are a historical tradition of the DNC.
Should Juanita Brodrick "be believed"?
In case anyone wants to attempt to make the point it was a long time ago and not still happening.
> to fight such online threats as ... hate speech and online censorship.
So you want to censor hate speech or you want to stop censorship? I don't get it
1 thing we know for sure: You impersonate APK, forgot to submit by anonymous coward vs. your username https://linux.slashdot.org/com... c6gunner. Lame. What is worse is you changing the praise others give apk's efforts.
Please define "hate speech" and then tell me what makes it unprotected speech? From what I've seen, hate speech is generally defined as "anything you say that I do not like and/or find offensive in my own little world."
I understand how a private enterprise can define xxxx-speech and then prohibit it. But I do not understand how a public utility (such as the internet) can opt-out of speech protections....
Sigh.
Trump announces ban on transgender individuals serving in military
‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration
I guess attacking people's livelihood or health counts as hurting their feelings?
There was a brief glimmer of freedom for people, where the internet would allow differing opinions to be posted and aired. Now the European Community is pushing their bullshit to the rest of the world. MIcrosofts behavior has some strange parallels, bring their version of order to the world..
I can't be the first to point this out! You can't be fore regulating out of existence hate speech and pro-censorship. I'm anti-censorship. I don't support people being mean to one another, but I don't advocate outlawing it or making someone "pay" for saying something mean while committing some other crime. These hate crime laws get turned around and used on peaceful protesters and advocates looking to minimize government harm. Look at what some states consider a hate crime today and you'll see what I mean (ie telling a cop to fuck off for instance is considered a hate crime in some states), but even before this it was being abused. It's used to stack charges against those the state doesn't like. Speech is something we should protect whether or not we like the message. Otherwise we are no better than the nazi's whose speech it is we don't like.
fuck these assholes
It's hard to understand how precisely US tech giants can sign up while we have the US Constitution. Our government should definitely not sign any form of speech control as it is against the Constitution.
We have laws for inciting violence. We even have hate laws to stack on crimes where race was a motivating factor, but that is not the same as speech laws.
It's pretty useless to have a Constitution that says we get freedom of speech within our boarders, but allow private US business to turn around and censor us because they control all the forms of communication.
How convenient for the government. Censorship without looking like the bad guys.
I do.
And I'm a firm believer that the cure to hate or other bad speech is more speech, not less.
Yeah, that's a nice dream that is a cornerstone of First Amendment law in the US. And it worked fine until we had more information exchange between a growing population enabled by ubiquitous computing and digitization. Now people can segment off early (like 16) and only listen to communities of hate-mongerers for the rest of their lives. They then become more cruel themselves, and perpetuate that hatred, and make the world demonstrably worse, and more speech will not change their minds.
It would be better to stop the speech of hate-mongering. The *problem* with censorship today is not that it would be in some way wrong to stop the message of hate; the problem is who do you trust to decide what words are okay and what words aren't? Censorship can easily turn into the tyranny of the majority.
Put another way, think about the hatred towards the party leader on whichever side you identify with most. People talking more isn't going to cure that hatred. Talking less can. But nobody could be trusted to say which things you shouldn't say.
Speech is NOT an emotion. There is no such thing as "hate speech"
Either you have free speech or you don't.
Trying to label "some" speech as hate speech is nothing more then censorship. PERIOD.
--
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh at "taboo" subjects.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
You're not allowed to explicitly lie about people to destroy their reputation. They get to sue your ass off about it if they care to do so.
Fundamentally the idea is that some speech is so harmful and without redeeming value, even theoretical redeeming value, that it doesn't need to be protected.
But thanks for the absolutes! "Only a Sith would deal in Absolutes!" (I really hope episode 3 meant that ironically, but regardless, free speech isn't so black-and-white.)
Also, adults censor a LOT more than children do, because adults have learned to be nice.
C'mon guys, put a little more truth in your articles. Just another attempt by the usual old degenerates to shake some money loose from Uncle Sugar. We get these spam calls all the time and are used to the faked caller-ID by now.
Macron can prevent people from discovering that France isn't really the perfect example of civilisation. The war crimes committed to preserve French colonialism in Angola wouldn't be published online.
There are only two genders.
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
We should give them their own units and use those units to humiliate our enemies.
Facebook censored
Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
banning hate speech / online censorship is an 1st amendment issue.
And it's way to easy for political ads to fall under hate speech that would rocket the case up to the us supreme court.
It's the entire reason for the 1st since the only speech that needs protecting is unpopular speech, in this case "hate speech".
The words "hate speech" are like the words "inner beauty", they can mean anything so they mean nothing.
So the obligatory Mr. Obvious post: Who defines what is hate speech?
Hell, I could disagree with pedophiles. In 10 years time the way things are going, that could be hate speech.
Who gets to be the arbiter of what is unpopular speech vs socially unacceptable speech vs hate speech? Are we to believe that there is an uncorruptible body that will be able to make these decisions without any personal bias? This is not in vague (read the PDF) but subjective. When one ruling class ends and another begins, will the rules stay the same?
I don't support censorship in any form but I understand the reasoning behind the desire. Regardless, I wouldn't support anyone who signed his accord unless that concept was stricken from it. The rest I'm fine with.
I'm APK and so is my wife!
When the "one world order" types regulate the internet, it will STIFLE freedom, not promote it. It's just more of a way of SHUTTING DOWN those that don't have the same views as the "new world order" types.
I believe a bunch of them cut off their units.
Honestly, the incels and Nazis have had decades to prove that legally forbidding hate speech is not sufficient deterrent anyway. They just don't fear it enough.
Fear of ostracism for their beliefs, now that puts enough fear in them to drive them under. Give legal protection to the unmask-and-ostracize folks if you really want to stop all this.
Also BTW I am totally not APK so don't accuse me of being APK I am just innocent little ol' me stanidng up for APK against all you ne'er do wells while he's trying to protect good people from specter and meltdown on iOS and Android. He is so awesome and you would be lucky to be so awesome as APK!
- totally not APK
if you think you can, you're an idiot.
Are they common carrier or not then?
The problem with "hate speech" and all the other SJW stuff is that they use flexible definitions of their subject. What exactly "hate speech" means, can easily change and already changed multiple times since the term "hate speech" was invented.
Unfortunately, this does a massive damage to the cases where it actually happens. This is even more clear with "rape". Nowadays, anything from a brutal gangrape with violent penetration into multiple orifices to accidentally touching someones breast is called "rape". There have even been a few cases where pure thought has been labeled with that term. It does nothing but disservice to actual rape victims, who cannot use a clearly understood term anymore to communicate a clear matter without going into details. These days, if you are a victim, you have to describe that penetration was involved or people will think you're just a snowflake who thinks a stupid joke is the same as physical violence.
We will see the same development with "hate speech" as soon as it becomes actionable. Everything even slightly objectable will get the label, until it becomes meaningless.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Hate speech such as the declaration of independance caused whole nations to riote and break away from the god given place being subjects of the rightfull King. Its too bad that the lawfull censors were not able to contain this treasonous hate speech before things got out of hand.
Censorship does work. It has allowed the people of North Korea to maintain a strong nation under benficial leaders who looks out for the best interest of its people. In a world where hate speech is outlawed we can all live under a similarly benificial society
The united States was founded by religious fundamentalists with guns. We need to stop this radical free thought that leads to such treasonous societies. One world global order run by enlightened athiests will surely save humanity from dangerous wack jobs like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (who were both racist slave owners)
Clueless or lying their asses off? Pick one.
to incite violence yes and it is. What matters is intent. How do you prove intent? With a jury. That's censorship. Facebook, OTOH, banning users they don't like isn't censorship. If you'd like it to be you need to nationalize Facebook.
And I don't think I could have been much clearer, but here's trying: I'm afraid we're going to start killing Jews. Or Muslims. Or Blacks. Or some other minority when the economy gets bad enough. It's not just about normalizing violence and racial hatred, it's about the economy. The Germans were ready to turn on the Jews because they didn't have food security. Give us 50,60% unemployment and you'll see that here. With automation + wealth inequality that's a real possibility. Eventually those 60% unemployed not eating will find themselves a strong man to organize them into not just a mob, but an actual army. Then he'll point them at some minority or another. The Germans were by no means the first to do this and there's no reason why they have to be the last.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's not really forcing the threat to be removed per se, but, well, it might as well be. BTW, the same is true if you do the same to your spouse (man or women). You'll then have a bail hearing to decide if you're a present danger and if you are you'll be jailed and possibly referred for psychiatric evaluation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The social media giants are a common carrier when it comes to being responsible for the things people post, but they're a private business when it comes to censoring and de-platforming those whose opinions/views they disagree with.
It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" arrangement.
Attacking people's livelihood? That's rich, coming from a group who used some lying proxies to try to destroy Kavanaugh's career and then attempted to justify it by claiming that a presumption of innocence wasn't applicable because it was a "job application" and not a court of law.
The hypocrisy is never-ending with your group.
Answer might be to not allow anyone with an IQ of less than 70 to post or surf the internet. Down side - most gun loving right wing bigots would be gone then how would GOP get message out, how would Hannity and the gorls survive?
a fully-regulated and controlled, totally globally censored internet is ... DONALDT TRUMP?!?
Well, in THAT case, I for one salute the great orange one and hope he is as steadfast as Claude Junker is drunk, and as devoted to free speech as Emmanuel Macron is to his school teacher. May he hold as firmly to free speech as Angela Merkel holds to waves of military-age male muslim "refugees".
It is, in many ways interesting, that TRUMP could end up being the great global protector of freedom. The full establishment of US politics, from "Hillary!" to "Jeb!" ALL of whom denounced Trump as some sort of oppressing totalitarian quasi-NAZI and presented themselves as defenders of goodness and puppies would have cravenly collapsed into quivering mounds of spinelessness in the face of such a globalist proposal.
You're caught impersonating me c6gunner (your name's the submitter signing "APK") https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & you ALTERED /.ers PRAISE of my work (not yours you don't even HAVE).
(Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house vs. me: RIGHT ZIP? https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... )
LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> GROW UP weezils - you do it to yourselves trying to "take me on" & FAILING like you always do (especially on tech) + so then you start STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts OR by IMPERSONATING me (weak BITCH tactics only a HOMO would do, lol)... apk
Orange man bad
This rage over "Hate Speech", being driven to suppress criticism of illegal aliens in Europe. Ghaddaffi had kept illegal aliens from crossing Libya. Merkel expressed sympathy for 'refugees' from the Syrian Civil War. A lot of nonSyrians illegal aliens lied, and said they were from Syria.
Don't like something? Declare it hate speech + racism + other scary terms. Then ban it because censorship is good... in order to prevent censorship? RIght?
all this just makes it sound to me like China and Russia may end up having higher potential for free speech than EU countries...
Who is a proponent of this?
Who actually fears other people's opinion (here called "hate speech") so much that they would sacrifice their own ability to express their opinions?
I can only assume these people are so daft that they cannot understand their pop opinion won't always be the prevailing one?
This is a great tool for control, but it doesn't help the citizen at all
Ideas want to be free.
Really? How do you know? Did you ask an idea what it wanted? Did you also believe data wants something too?
I pity inanimate objects, because they cannot move.
> transgender in military
I got a great idea. Lets take a group of people that has some of the highest rates of suicide and have them join an organization that is known to traumatize and have high risk of suicide. What could possibly go wrong.
The military must be selective. There is more to the issue than just a transgender ability to serve.
Yes it is, it's the last two words of the first paragraph.
Why not start with something we can all agree on, e.g. Cyber Attack and Election Meddling.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Sorry, but I'm cynical on this one. Sure the Trump Administration doesn't want an agreement on internet hate speech, that's how Trump gets his hate speech out there!
Mr. "Very good people, both sides".
Mr. "There should have been armed guards in the synagogue".
Mr. "There are Middle Easterners, plague carriers, a tank, and two roast chickens in a convoy of poor Central Americans".
Trump likes his hate speech just the way it is, thank you very much.