Europe gives Facebook, Twitter final warning on hate speech

[Player Twelve]

MAGAboys glorious ancestors had twelve years in which they had all the ''FRADOM OF SPUCH'' they keep screaming about. They had 12 years in which they were paid by the Nazis to squeak their message (always a variation of KILL DUH DJEEEEEEEWS). As they spent those years oinking about the execution of anyone who disagreed with them were usually listened by their Nazi masters, I'm not going to cry over a basement dweller screaming that he can't express his ''political views'' (KILL EVERYONE A SHADE DIFFERENT THAN ME SO I CAN GET LAID).

This really didn't make it any easier to understand.

[Beazy]

Perhaps but while Daneman might want only freedom for the (far?) right here there still may be a point.

One should be cautious demanding or allowing censorship. It is easy to be too heavyhanded with such things. Better to not censor beforehand and punish that which crosses some lines (for example inciting riots, slander/libel (civil court issue though) etc)) but let people speak before you take away their voice.

Or so i would think

Well I agree, If I had servers in Spain, and the Spanish gov told me to censor anything, I would laugh, shut down the server and force the people of Spain to connect via US servers.

I dont agree with it, but if you want to house a business in another country, one you're not a citizen of, you pretty much have to do what they say. =o[

[sarahtasher]

This really didn't make it any easier to understand.

Traitors like Brasillach were paid by the Nazis before and during the war to peddle the Nazi gospel and demoralize further the French. That's the ''detail'' ''fradom of spuch'' apologists don't get.

Anti-hate laws in Europe are not passed because of ''muh feelings''. They are passed because Nazi-lickers like Brasillach spent the war calling for the murder of Jews and résistants, and he got his wish ten of thousands of time in France alone. The ''muh feelings'' bit is also rich considering that the antisemite garbage peddled by the Nazi-lickers was to manipulate the most mentally challenged segment of the population in target countries. That's odd, isn'it, that those on DAS FHURAH payroll were opposed to both Jews and any form of rearmament ?

Yeah, I'm going to say it : racial slurs are used to manipulate people struggling to tie their shoelaces without assistance.

[Noradin]

But when talking about American politics (or of any other country), makes no sense using the political spectrum of another country as standard, instead of the local political spectrum.

Using the terms as the public of the USA uses them makes no sense regardless which country you are talking about.
(Because they make everything a synonym for one of their two parties and then use them as buzzwords.)

[LMuhlen]

The establishment hates that they've lost control of the narrative. For years they've programmed us with mass media. Who determines what's hate speech and what isn't? Don't agree with mass migration, you're now silenced. Go against any official narrative, you could be silenced.

I'm honestly not sure if you are talking about Facebook or the government...

[Halicia]

This is one of the very few times I'll agree with you that the EU is overstepping their bounds. Hate speech through these mediums is really easy to ignore, and users have a lot of options when it comes to removing such speech from their field of view.

In terms of using these sits as platforms for organizing hate groups, governments can still take actions against individuals if laws are broken, so I don't see a problem.

Its a crime to publish hate speech. Facebook and Twitter are publishing hate speech. How is that not a simple matter ?

You're basically saying "Yeah, I know murder is wrong, but the government is overstepping its bounds prosecuting Murder Inc... they can easily take actions against the individuals committing murder."

[Fitheach]

Prioritizing feelings over actual rights is infantile. What you're talking about is effectively thought policing and is regressive in nature. But then you've already shown your grasp on reality to be tenuous, so /shrug.

Prioritizing fighting Fascism over letting Racists attack marginalized communities is called justice.

[Acidbaron]

Traitors like Brasillach were paid by the Nazis before and during the war to peddle the Nazi gospel and demoralize further the French. That's the ''detail'' ''fradom of spuch'' apologists don't get.

Anti-hate laws in Europe are not passed because of ''muh feelings''. They are passed because Nazi-lickers like Brasillach spent the war calling for the murder of Jews and résistants, and he got his wish ten of thousands of time in France alone. The ''muh feelings'' bit is also rich considering that the antisemite garbage peddled by the Nazi-lickers was to manipulate the most mentally challenged segment of the population in target countries. That's odd, isn'it, that those on DAS FHURAH payroll were opposed to both Jews and any form of rearmament ?

Yeah, I'm going to say it : racial slurs are used to manipulate people struggling to tie their shoelaces without assistance.

Not only that, to pull it out the spectrum of racial comments. We also had to deal with communism and the sovjet union trying to cause riots and destabilize governments.

In any case you are trying to explain this to people who still do not get that this came first and foremost as an answer from the EU member states to partially stop radicalization of their youth for groups like ISIS by giving them an easy accessible platform, they continue to play it as something about "feelings" while it isn't, better yet they attempt to play it out as an "anti-right wing" thing, while most of the EU is right wing, largest factions in the EU parliament are right wing and this came long before the whole thing of charlottes ville and what not.

So i'm very much of opinion that these people are intentionally ignorant or simply dishonest.

[Elim Garak]

So can someone explain to me how this is not censorship?

[araine]

acebook, Twitter and other social media companies have been given an ultimatum by the European Union: rid your platforms of hate speech or face legal consequences.

European regulators have been pushing social media firms to remove racist and violent posts from their platforms in a timely manner for years. Their patience is running out.

Facebook (FB, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30), Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) and Google (GOOGL, Tech30) have all pledged to do more. In May 2016, they promised to review a majority of hate speech flagged by users within 24 hours and to remove any illegal content.

But the European Commission, EU's top regulator, said Thursday they are still failing to act fast enough. It said it would pass laws allowing the EU to impose punishments on companies that fail to act.

"The situation is not sustainable: in more than 28% of cases, it takes more than one week for online platforms to take down illegal content," said Mariya Gabriel, the EU's top official in charge of the digital economy and society.

The Commission said it will consider implementing new laws to tackle the problem if the online platforms fail to "take swift action over the coming months."

It said it wants the companies to invest more in detecting of hate speech, and work with trusted reviewers who are trained to know what constitutes hate speech.

It also wants companies to do a better job of preventing illegal content from reappearing.

The punishments could be severe. The EU has a reputation for hitting companies that don't play by its rules hard.

Earlier this year, it ordered Google to pay $2.8 billion in an antitrust fine. On Wednesday, it announced a $1 billion penalty for truck manufacturer Scania for participating in a cartel.

Several European countries aren't waiting for the EU to act. They're already pushing through strict laws punishing social media companies for being too lax when it comes to illegal hate speech.

The German government approved a plan in April to start imposing fines of as much as €50 million ($59 million) on Facebook, Twitter and others if they fail to remove hate speech and fake news posts within 24 hours after being flagged. Other illegal content needs to be deleted within 7 days of reporting.

In the U.K., a parliamentary committee has accused social media firms of prioritizing profit over user safety by continuing to host unlawful content. The committee called for "meaningful fines" if the companies do not improve fast.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/tech...ope/index.html

We really need to tell EU to fuck off! They're intruding way too much in policing speech!

Excellent since we need to get rid of and stop the hate speech from the far right

- - - Updated - - -

So can someone explain to me how this is not censorship?

It is not censorship anymore than you not being allowed to use your newspaper as a foundation in hate speech.


And hate speech is a crime if you doubt that just check what happened to the guy from Jarfalla that posted something about somalian immigrants this summer in a closed facebook group he got fines of roughly 2000 dollars for calling them a cancer etc etc etc on the country.

Really explain why we should tolerate crimes being committed on facebook and twitter when we always hear from the far right it is ILLEGAL blah blah blah blah when they have a pet issue they want to ramble about so explain why ILLEGAL doesnt apply in this case? is it because the crime being committed is against minorities and or immigrants etc etc etc you know non white people of the right race and nationality? really if it is ILLEGAL i expect right wingers to be supporting the crackdown since we all know how often they like to go what part of ILLEGAL dont you get

[Jeezy911]

ultimatum by the European Union

These globalists can just fuck off already.

- - - Updated - - -

speech is a crime

Found your problem.

[The Penguin]

I thought Europe was all for freedom of speech.

It is. Except for when that speech is something that their alt-left masters disagree with. Then you are a demi-human fascist in need of getting your face knocked in with a baseball bat wielded by a Antifa Terrorist*, or get a face full of acid from someone trying to mimic "Captain America" (but who is acting more like Baron Zemo).

All of the above isn't conspiracy theory either. It's happened at multiple venues.

*-Antifa is currently considered a Terrorist Organization by the United States Government.

[araine]

These globalists can just fuck off already.

- - - Updated - - -



Found your problem.

HATE SPEECH is a crime and keep on changing my posts to not reflect what i have written is the typical action of folks that know they have no legal grounds to stand on when it comes to the ILLEGAL actions they support and wants to remain in place, like HATE SPEECH

[Endus]

So can someone explain to me how this is not censorship?

A quick question first; do you consider being imprisoned for threatening to murder someone to be "censorship"?

Because if "no", then you've answered why this isn't censorship either. And if "yes", then you've admitted that censorship isn't automatically bad.

[Elim Garak]

It is not censorship anymore than you not being allowed to use your newspaper as a foundation in hate speech.

So censorship. Government tells me what not to say.

And hate speech is a crime

No, it's not. it's censorship tool.

- - - Updated - - -

A quick question first; do you consider being imprisoned for threatening to murder someone to be "censorship"?

Because if "no", then you've answered why this isn't censorship either. And if "yes", then you've admitted that censorship isn't automatically bad.

You are bad at this. No speech is censored in your example. You can still threaten to murder anyone while being imprisoned. And you are not imprisoned for the things you said. But for demonstration of dangerous intent.

[Endus]

You are bad at this. No speech is censored in your example. You can still threaten to murder anyone while being imprisoned.

Then you've answered your own question as to how this isn't censorship.

See how easy that was?

[Nitro Fun]

A quick question first; do you consider being imprisoned for threatening to murder someone to be "censorship"?

Because if "no", then you've answered why this isn't censorship either. And if "yes", then you've admitted that censorship isn't automatically bad.

What kind of logic is this? Threatening someone is on a whole different level than saying something that hurts someones fee-fees.

[Endus]

What kind of logic is this? Threatening someone is on a whole different level than saying something that hurts someones fee-fees.

We're talking about two types of unprotected speech. That one is punished more strongly than the other is pretty darned irrelevant when what we're discussing is the nature of unprotected speech itself.

Also, describing hate speech as something that "hurts someone's fee-fees" is just wrong. So obviously and blatantly wrong that it itself amounts to an attempt to derail the discussion through disinformation.

[Nitro Fun]

We're talking about two types of unprotected speech. That one is punished more strongly than the other is pretty darned irrelevant when what we're discussing is the nature of unprotected speech itself.

Yeah, fee-fees so important that it's justified to ban speech that hurts someones fee-fees.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, describing hate speech as something that "hurts someone's fee-fees" is just wrong. So obviously and blatantly wrong that it itself amounts to an attempt to derail the discussion through disinformation.

No, it's not wrong, check what someone brought up about laws on hate speech on an earlier page. Expressing disrespect, hate speech? What the fuck is that?

[Lahis]

Yeah, fee-fees so important that it's justified to ban speech that hurts someones fee-fees.

Threatening to rape or kill someone, their family and their entire race goes beyond hurting "fee-fees".