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.

Comments

Let me get this straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???

Re: Let me get this straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever claimed Europeans were smart.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[sizzlinkitty]

Your absolutely right, it will be impossible to have a uncensored internet free of hate speech, as the act of removing hate speech is censorship. I would rather have an uncensored web over something free of hate speech.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[shaksys]

The system to remove hate speech will certainly be used to remove other speech.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[Tokolosh]

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." -- U.S. major justifying bombing and shelling civilian areas in Bán Tre.

"Internet media should spread positive information, uphold the correct political direction, and guide public opinion toward the right direction," the state-run Xinhua news service reported in April, summarizing the instructions of Mr. Xi, who "stressed the centralized, unified leadership of the Party over cybersecurity."

Re:Let me get this straight.

[nmb3000]

So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???

Exactly. It's like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid.

Unfortunately more and more people eat this shit up. The only thing missing is "think of the children".

"The internet [is] not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet," an official from Macron's office said. "Otherwise, the internet as we know it today -- free, open and secure -- will be damaged by the new threats."

Do these people even hear themselves talk? "We need to regulate the internet to keep it free and open." This is the exact definition of doublespeak.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[ShanghaiBill]

The difference between Europe and China is that in China the censorship is pure, while in Europe it is diluted with hypocrisy.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[AHuxley]

EU bureaucrats will decide what speech is and who to report for judicial and police investigation.
No freedom of speech online. No freedom after speech.
Think tanks, NGO and EU governments will report users content and comments.
No funny comments about French politics. No comments about Catalan independence.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[Kaenneth]

Hate speech is great, it lets you know who the assholes are so you can fire them, expell them, shun them, etc.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[I'm just joshin]

I do.
And I'm a firm believer that the cure to hate or other bad speech is more speech, not less.

Re: Let me get this straight.

[c6gunner]

No one expects the European Inquisition?

Re: Let me get this straight.

[c6gunner]

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." -- U.S. major justifying bombing and shelling civilian areas in BÃn Tre.

Quotes like these are evidence that fake news is not a recent phenomenon. The New York Times made that one up in 1968.

Re: Let me get this straight.

[taustin]

Nobody ever claimed Europeans were honest, either.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[taustin]

When you hate seeing opinions you disagree with, everything removed will, obviously, be hate speech.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

Link to article with the full text: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr...

Text:
Cyberspace now plays a crucial role in every aspect of our lives and it is the shared responsibility of a wide variety of actors, in their respective roles, to improve trust, security and stability in cyberspace. We reaffirm our support to an open, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful cyberspace, which has become an integral component of life in all its social, economic, cultural and political aspects. We also reaffirm that international law, including the United Nations Charter in its entirety, international humanitarian law and customary international law is applicable to the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by States. We reaffirm that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, and also reaffirm the applicability of international human rights law in cyberspace. We reaffirm that international law, together with the voluntary norms of responsible State behavior during peacetime and associated confidence and capacity-building measures developed within the United Nations, is the foundation for international peace and security in cyberspace. We condemn malicious cyber activities in peacetime, notably the ones threatening or resulting in significant, indiscriminate or systemic harm to individuals and critical infrastructure and welcome calls for their improved protection.
We also welcome efforts by States and non-state actors to provide support to victims of malicious use of ICTs on an impartial and independent basis, whenever it occurs, whether during or outside of armed conflict. We recognize that the threat of cyber criminality requires more effort to improve the security of the products we use, to strengthen our defenses against criminals and to promote cooperation among all stakeholders, within and across national borders, and that the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is a key tool in this regard. We recognize the responsibilities of key private sector actors in improving trust, security and stability in cyberspace and encourage initiatives aimed at strengthening the security of digital processes, products and services. We welcome collaboration among governments, the private sector and civil society to create new cybersecurity standards that enable infrastructures and organizations to improve cyber protections. We recognize all actors can support a peaceful cyberspace by encouraging the responsible and coordinated disclosure of vulnerabilities. We underline the need to enhance broad digital cooperation and increase capacity-building efforts by all actors and encourage initiatives that build user resilience and capabilities. We recognize the necessity of a strengthened multistakeholder approach and of additional efforts to reduce risks to the stability of cyberspace and to build-up confidence, capacity and trust. To that end, we affirm our willingness to work together, in the existing fora and through the relevant organizations, institutions, mechanisms and processes to assist one another and implement cooperative measures, notably in order to:
- Prevent and recover from malicious cyber activities that threaten or cause significant, indiscriminate or systemic harm to individuals and critical infrastructure;
- Prevent activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet;
- Strengthen our capa

Re: Let me get this straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm both gay and Jewish. I hear hate speech literally all the time, from left and right.

I'm not your shield for justifying censorship. I'm not your pet to be protected. I'm not an infant who needs your shelter.

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[AmiMoJo]

It would make more sense if you hadn't cut off the first sentence of that quote:

âoeThe internet is a space currently managed by a technical community of private players. But itâ(TM)s not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet,â an official from Macronâ(TM)s office said.

âoeOtherwise, the internet as we know it today â" free, open and secure â" will be damaged by the new threats.â

He is clearly talking about corporations owning the internet, the end of net neutrality and businesses getting to decide what is acceptable online and what isn't.

In other words he is advocating free speech protection from corporation censorship, what many on Slashdot have been demanding.

Re:Let me get this straight.

[AmiMoJo]

It's not hypocrisy, it's a different understanding of what freedom is.

In the US freedom is mostly about not being preventing from doing what you want. Most of the limits are to prevent harm to other people.

In Europe freedom also includes the opportunity to do things you want to do. So for example education is considered a human right, because without education you are severely limited in your ability to pursue your goals and to pursue happiness. The US has some of this, e.g. education is mandatory and parents can't prevent their kids getting any entirely.

So in this case it's clear to Europeans what they mean. Speech that limits the freedom of others, e.g. by inciting violence against them and making them afraid to live their lives as they wish is anti-freedom. Again, the US does recognize that to a lesser extent with laws against threats.

If you read TFA the main focus is actually not on such speech, it's on the fact that right now it's mostly corporations deciding what speech is acceptable. Many on Slashdot have been calling for companies like Facebook and Twitter to be forced to allow all legal speech rather than just what they wish to tolerate on their sites, so in theory should support this.

Ummm...

[nwaack]

"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?

Re:Ummm...

[lgw]

I think the intent is clear: censorship by the good guys is a praiseworthy protection against hate speech. Censorship by the bad guys is deplorable. Doublethink is key to duckspeak.

Re:Ummm...

[magzteel]

They can call it whatever they like that sounds noble.
The end result will be legally enforced censorship.

Re:Ummm...

[superwiz]

Anybody else see a problem with that statement?

Yes. It was made. That's a problem.

Re:Ummm...

[fustakrakich]

Yes. It was made. That's a problem.

That's a small problem. The big problem is that people accept, even want it.

Re:Ummm...

[guruevi]

Exactly, since the EU Supreme Court just decided that the historic facts Islam is based on is "hate speech" there is no need for anyone to sign this agreement.

Re:Ummm...

[The Grim Reefer]

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?

You mean besides how you stop both hate speech and online censorship?

The internet should not be regulated? I agree that it shouldn't. If you are offended by something, then don't view it.

Fighting online attacks sounds great, but I don't' see how that's even a possibility. Hell, the US can't seem to stop this, I'm not sure how this could be done without a hell of a lot more oversight, to the point of neutering the internet as we know it.

There's no such thing as hate speech? Granted, there are hateful things that people say to each other, but there is no way to objectively define hate speech. Which is one of the issues I have with the term. What's considered acceptable speech today may not be in the very near future. How many things were acceptable 10, 50, or 100 year ago that would fall under current hate speech laws? It's a nebulous term and the thought of laws for such a thing being defined by who's in power is scary as hell.

I'm not a fan of any kind of censorship. Again, this falls back to who is in power and what they deem acceptable. If I find something offensive, I try to make my case, move past it or ignore it. Of course you can make arguments for not allowing people to get an abhorrent point of view out in the public. But if no one is even allowed to discuss these things, then there is absolutely no chance of trying to convince them of a different point of view. It's even worse if censorship gets used by those in power to suppress a point of view that they don't like, even if it is what the majority of a nation believes is correct.

Re:Ummm...

[ShanghaiBill]

Exactly, since the EU Supreme Court just decided that the historic facts Islam is based on is "hate speech"

Their ruling is based on the principle that if people get offended and react violently, then it is hate speech.

NOT hate speech: Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old girl. -- This is a widely accepted historical fact.
NOT hate speech: Men who have sex with 9 year old girls are pedophiles. -- This is a noncontroversial fact.
HATE SPEECH: Mohammad was a pedophile. -- This is a logical syllogism of the previous two facts, but is hate speech because people got offended.

NOT hate speech: Jesus was a pedophile. -- This is ok, because Christians don't get offended easily.
NOT hate speech: Joseph Smith was a pedophile. -- Also ok, because Mormons don't riot.
NOT hate speech: Buddha was a pedophile. -- Buddhists don't riot either.

So in Europe, if you want your right to not be offended enforced by the courts, you need to be willing to get violent, vandalize cars, and burn some shops. Some bombings will bring you even more respect.

Re:Ummm...

[asdfman2000]

NOT hate speech: Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old girl. -- This is a widely accepted historical fact.

No. Pretty sure the "fact" just is that the dude married a 9 year old. Marriage back then meant something entirely different.

He married her when she was six. They consummated the marriage when she was 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

To fight hate speech and online censorship?

[XxtraLarGe]

They'll have to make up their minds, they can't have both.

Re:To fight hate speech and online censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you see? It's not censorship when they censor things they don't like.

Oh, fuck off with your bullshit "Hate Speech"

[UnknownSoldier]

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.

Re:Oh, fuck off with your bullshit "Hate Speech"

[jwymanm]

This is just more big gov and big biz land grab. The more things are regulated the harder it is for competition to keep up. Every little % helps. Google and co do not care that they are stripping humanity out of anything and everything they do. They just want to make sure the playing field is only level for themselves. This will just turn everyone towards a newer hidden web. Hopefully distributed and free of their control.

Re: Oh, fuck off with your bullshit "Hate Speech"

[HornWumpus]

In the USA, 'Liberal' has a new meaning. It used to mean 'in favor of liberty', not for decades now.

Can't wait to read this

[willoughby]

So we're going to fight "hate speech" and at the same time fight "online censorship"? Oh, this should be good....

hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decides what is hate speech?????

I had the same reaction

[SuperKendall]

I've never seen a sentence fight so hard with itself for meaning.

Censorship and YRO

[Kunedog]

I did. I also noticed that /. somehow forgot the censorship and YRO icons, as they often do on certain stories.

Censoring Internet to prevent online censorship?

[najajomo]

“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.

Thanks Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

We legally enforce censorship all the time

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:We legally enforce censorship all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

1. We don't censor.
2. The crime of an actionable threat of violence is in the intent of violence, not speaking about it.

Re:We legally enforce censorship all the time

[Areyoukiddingme]

We legally enforce censorship all the time 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.

Do they actually force you to remove the threat? It was my understanding that they don't. The Secret Service just wants to know if you're a credible threat or not. Your speech isn't censored. It just has consequences. And if you're not actually a credible threat, the consequences amount to momentary inconvenience. And your name on a list. I assume it's difficult to get a Top Secret clearance if you've posted a threat to kill the president, though I don't actually know. It just seems like something the DoD would frown upon.

Re: I don't

[c6gunner]

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.

This is clearly the far-left strategy:

1. Pretend to be against violence.
2. Ban violence.
3. Claim that speech you don't like is violence.
4. Ban any speech you don't like.
5. Beat the living fuck out of anyone saying things you don't like (after all, it's just self defense).

It should really have been obvious all along, but it wasn't until they rolled out the concept of "microagression" that people really started to clue in.

Re:I don't

[nwaack]

You seem to think that hate speech = threats of violence. That may have been the case back in the day, but now that we're living in PC social justice hell, hate speech isn't just threats of violence, it's anything that offends people. If the world is going to censor "offensive stuff" on the internet, then we might as well just shut the whole thing down right now.

Re:Totalitarians

[Luckyo]

Macron is the pro-corporate former banker turned pro-elite politician. How you managed to spin that into "socialism" is anyone's guess, especially considering that his country actually has a socialist party, and he ran against them and won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

failure at the start

[Tom]

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.