Facebook, Twitter and YouTube under fire over hate speech

[InsanelySecretD]

This is an interesting article - it seems that the French goverment is after Facebook, Twitter and YouTube over hate speech.

 

Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36301772

 

Ironically, Zuckerberg claims, Facebook has just started investigating censorship claims couple of days ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36285643

 

Double standard? or something some people view as 'conservative' others view as 'hate speech'?

 

Also, given that the member states of the EU are now allowed to ban individuals below a certain age from using social media, maybe that could help against hate speech?

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35110474 

[Starelementpoke]

6 minutes ago, InsanelySecretD said:

This is an interesting article - it seems that the French goverment is after Facebook, Twitter and YouTube over hate speech.

 

Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36301772

 

Ironically, Zuckerberg claims, Facebook has just started investigating censorship claims couple of days ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36285643

 

Double standard? or something some people view as 'conservative' others view as 'hate speech'?

 

Also, given that the member states of the EU are now allowed to ban individuals below a certain age from using social media, maybe that could help against hate speech?

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35110474 

I think you need a quote for this post to meet guidelines.

[Jobbe03]

That's fucking retarded. It's the internet and all three allow you to block and mute people. 

 

If France succeeds in this lawsuit it's gonna be the beginning of the end for the internet. 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Anything is/can be hate speech if you try hard enough to see it as one & with enough followers it's assured that the pattern continues without repercussions, begs to ask the question who is "right" in the first place , not necessarily 'first place' rather overall in the sense 'right' as in 'true/logic'

[Arty]

9 minutes ago, InsanelySecretD said:

 hate speech?

 

aww people are afraid of some words on a computer screen made by pussies behind a monitor.

 

 

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, Jobbe03 said:

That's fucking retarded. It's the internet and all three allow you to block and mute people. 

 

If France succeeds in this lawsuit it's gonna be the beginning of the end for the internet.

No it's not, and no it won't. If your site makes illegal content publicly available, expect legal action. Doesn't matter if it's CP, terrorism propaganda, or illegal hate speech. The only reason Facebook is getting sued is that they failed to take down stuff that was reported.

 

Heck, even the DMCA is stricter than this.

[Raytsou]

Nice quotes.

But on topic, I think this is insanely stupid. What's next, ISP enforced censorship of all foul language? It's place for free speech, and if you get offended by somebody else's opinion, then you need to grow up.

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, Raytsou said:

Nice quotes.

But on topic, I think this is insanely stupid. What's next, ISP enforced censorship of all foul language? It's place for free speech, and if you get offended by somebody else's opinion, then you need to grow up.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, there are things it is illegal to say. If you want to adjust those limits, that's one thing, but pretending that you can remove them altogether is absurd.

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, Fooshi said:

"The French Jewish Students Union (UEJF), SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie say they found 586 offensive posts between 31 March and 10 May."

 

HOLY SHIT, SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET

 

 

Wonder Pets, great show.

[Raytsou]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Freedom of speech is not absolute, there are things it is illegal to say. If you want to adjust those limits, that's one thing, but pretending that you can remove them altogether is absurd.

Yes, you are right. There's certain limit as to what you can say without being held responsible. But the problem is that people are becoming too sensitive and many times I've seen people get their panties in a twist over simple criticism that was presented too bluntly.

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Raytsou said:

Yes, you are right. There's certain limit as to what you can say without being held responsible. But the problem is that people are becoming too sensitive and many times I've seen people get their panties in a twist over simple criticism that was presented too bluntly.

Absolutely. I don't want a "Twitter mafia" cracking down on the internet, but I think it's okay that speech that is clearly illegal in a country can be blocked/taken down by legal action.

[Raytsou]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Absolutely. I don't want a "Twitter mafia" cracking down on the internet, but I think it's okay that speech that is clearly illegal in a country can be blocked/taken down by legal action.

Oh yeah, by the way, does anyone know what exactly are the posts that facebook/twitter/youtube is taking flak over?

[InsanelySecretD]

7 minutes ago, Raytsou said:

Oh yeah, by the way, does anyone know what exactly are the posts that facebook/twitter/youtube is taking flak over?

I don't think they will make them public just yet (if ever)

 

Also, those are cases when Twitter / Facebook / YouTube didn't react after they were flagged up

Quote

The French Jewish Students Union (UEJF), SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie say they found 586 offensive posts between 31 March and 10 May.
 

But they claim only a small percentage was taken down.

586 may also be a number of posts that were found/flagged up, while the number may be greater for posts that people didn't react to. We would need some more detailed articles on what is the % of hate speech out of everything that is published online.

[outkastarmy]

they can stick in any orifice they feel necessary, if they dont like it they can ignore it like the rest of us have to, someone needs to step up and stop the constant law suits before it gets out of hand, nevermind it already has lol.

[Stadin6]

In my opinion, you should only be offended by things people you know irl (friends, family, school, work) say. If some random person on the internet says that you are ugly, you should just ignore them. If a lot of people on the internet is "hating" on you, you probably have done something wrong. If they are commenting because of your actions (like spreading misinformation(SJWs) ) you should check if the comments are correct. If they are correct, you most likely have done something wrong, and they are pointing it out (even if they do it aggressively).

 

It is important to understand what they classify ass hate speech. Some things are actually bad and must be removed, but many things are just people being butthurt.

[MMKing]

While i respect the right of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube to remove speech at their discretion for any reason, or no reason at all.

 

It's an extreme overreach of power for a court of law to do so, going far into the area of totalitarianism.

[Sakkura]

4 minutes ago, Stadin6 said:

In my opinion, you should only be offended by things people you know irl (friends, family, school, work) say. If some random person on the internet says that you are ugly, you should just ignore them. If a lot of people on the internet is "hating" on you, you probably have done something wrong. If they are commenting because of your actions (like spreading misinformation(SJWs) ) you should check if the comments are correct. If they are correct, you most likely have done something wrong, and they are pointing it out (even if they do it aggressively).

 

It is important to understand what they classify ass hate speech. Some things are actually bad and must be removed, but many things are just people being butthurt.

You don't seem to know what hate speech is. It's not about insulting someone, it's about denigrating a group - like saying "all n-words should f-ing burn" or the Hitler version of "glass of juice."

[MMKing]

2 minutes ago, Stadin6 said:

In my opinion, you should only be offended by things people you know irl (friends, family, school, work) say. If some random person on the internet says that you are ugly, you should just ignore them. If a lot of people on the internet is "hating" on you, you probably have done something wrong. If they are commenting because of your actions (like spreading misinformation(SJWs) ) you should check if the comments are correct. If they are correct, you most likely have done something wrong, and they are pointing it out (even if they do it aggressively).

 

It is important to understand what they classify ass hate speech. Some things are actually bad and must be removed, but many things are just people being butthurt.

Yes i agree, the owners of the website should remove things that they consider bad. Regardless of how vague ''consider bad'' is. A private website is not a democracy, and users don't have the right to have their opinion posted.

 

But a nation can't be allowed to punish citizens or private enterprises for speech. Regardless of how specific the laws are, or how many people agree with the law. If 99% of the people want to throw you in prison for no reason, it doesn't make it right. Democracy decides what will be done, not what is right.

[positivePXL]

These websites should only be required to filter this content going into countries that have these bans. In America, we have our constitutional rights, and these companies are based out of America, it shouldn't be our fault that France is butthurt.

[MrRavens]

Ok so a group of ppl flagged a bunch of stuff and it wasn't taken down fast enough? Actually it doesn't actually say they flagged all these things so nvm. Nevertheless these social media sites are huge, mostly filtered and watched over by bots. Again I say they are huuge!  So by the time humans see and deal with it, a bunch of time has passed. That's why I'm not surprised it took from March to May to take down a few things. 

Also they need to be very careful how they tread, if they go through and make laws about these type of things. Because we all know how these things started to spread farther than what we want them to. To the point where general things that offend somebody might be an issue. But that in it's self is an issue since things that are offensive are subjective. Not everything offends everyone. This eventually leading to an internet or society where we aren't allowed to voice anything that may offend somebody across the world, around the block, under a bridge, behind a wall, on their laptop. You can never perfectly know what may offend someone, which is why I worry about how far these type of things will go. Now IK they are trying to deal with some bigger issues here towards race and blah blah I get it. But I just wonder how this plays out in the future, because it's never enough.

 

Just some thoughts I had. 
 

Just thinking that even this post may have offended ppl lol. Don't burn me on a stake lol xP

[Notional]

Political correctness like always is turning into full blown censorship of people with the "wrong" ideas. It's thought crime, just like we saw it in Communist soviet union. Pure 1984. I don't get why people aren't freaked out by this. Freedom of speech is not a given, yet we let it slide through our fingers.

 

Trigglypuff is now officially France's mascot:

"Get this hate speech off of internet"

[Sakkura]

16 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Yes i agree, the owners of the website should remove things that they consider bad. Regardless of how vague ''consider bad'' is. A private website is not a democracy, and users don't have the right to have their opinion posted.

 

But a nation can't be allowed to punish citizens or private enterprises for speech. Regardless of how specific the laws are, or how many people agree with the law. If 99% of the people want to throw you in prison for no reason, it doesn't make it right. Democracy decides what will be done, not what is right.

Of course they can. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Libel, perjury, revealing classified information (without good reason)... all perfectly valid reasons for a country to punish a citizen, under the right circumstances.

[positivePXL]

4 minutes ago, LtRavens said:

This eventually leading to an internet or society where we aren't allowed to voice anything that may offend somebody across the world, around the block, under a bridge, behind a wall, on their laptop.

I've come to terms with the fact that no matter what I say, it will offend somebody in the world. Be it criticism or encouragement, someone will find a way. These children who are going around flailing their arms and whining about a few posts on the internet need to grow up. You don't want to see it? Don't Google it.

[MMKing]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Of course they can. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Libel, perjury, revealing classified information (without good reason)... all perfectly valid reasons for a country to punish a citizen, under the right circumstances.

Classified information leak is punished because the person in question agreed not to reveal the information.

Perjury is the act of lying in a court of law, after having agreed that you would speak the truth.

See the pattern.

 

By Libel i can only assume you mean in the context of defamatory. As in, making false accusations or damaging someones credibility with no justification or evidence. Which i agree, is a matter of discussion. But i still don't think it's justifiable for a court of law to legally punish citizens for doing this, apart from extreme cases were evidence is fabricated. In which case it's not really free speech that is in question.

 

In the context of this thread though. Hate speech simply cannot be punishable in a free and open society, else that society is no longer free and open. North Korea punishes speech the government deem to be punishable. Be it for good reason or completely arbitrary. It's simply too much power in the hands of the law, especially in a democracy, which simply cannot survive without free speech.

[Sakkura]

10 minutes ago, MMKing said:

In the context of this thread though. Hate speech simply cannot be punishable in a free and open society

Yes it can, and it's childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.