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....
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
Hate speech is any speech that the people in charge don't like.
I did. I also noticed that /. somehow forgot the censorship and YRO icons, as they often do on certain stories.
Those that hate free speech
. .
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.
https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_...
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.
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.
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/
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?
Good people in the USA who don't have to worry about what their government thinks of free speech can set up new freedom supporting brands.
Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech.
No EU government "laws" on political and faith related content to worry about in the USA.
In the USA you have the freedom to publish without the government wanting to review political and faith related content.
As the EU removes cartoons, memes, art work, comedy, political content, music, lyrics, books the USA can welcome artists, authors and publishers.
Use a quality VPN to escape the EU censorship to get funny and creative real time content out of the EU to the freedom supporting brands of the USA.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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..
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.
There are only two genders.
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
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 decides what is hate speech?????
Wikipedia.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Thanks for proving my point. By you speaking more, you proved how irrational and infeasible your position is. Maybe not to yourself, but to those reading this discussion.
Ideas want to be free. Using force to quash them serves only to make them more attractive. Showing their foolishness, like what was done to the KKK, is far more effective.
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.
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.
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
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/
all this just makes it sound to me like China and Russia may end up having higher potential for free speech than EU countries...
Why not start with something we can all agree on, e.g. Cyber Attack and Election Meddling.
Greed is the root of all evil.