Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

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.

18 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Let me get this straight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Let me get this straight. by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight. by shaksys · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Let me get this straight. by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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."

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    4. Re:Let me get this straight. by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    5. Re:Let me get this straight. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    6. Re:Let me get this straight. by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    7. Re: Let me get this straight. by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

      No one expects the European Inquisition?

    8. Re:Let me get this straight. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Ummm... by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?

    1. Re:Ummm... by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Ummm... by magzteel · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    3. Re:Ummm... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. To fight hate speech and online censorship? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Oh, fuck off with your bullshit "Hate Speech" by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Can't wait to read this by willoughby · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. Re: I don't by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Totalitarians by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/...