4 ms·

Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours

17 points by randomname2 10y ago

hackuser 10y ago
> "... there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate." Sometimes speech is clearly hateful or 'civil', but certainly it is well known there is not a clear distinction between those two categories; there is a large, debated grey area.
dev1n 10y ago
Hate speech is free speech. I don't like how the article associates hate speech with the war on terror within one paragraph. Not a good sign for human rights.
- uncoder0 10y ago
  I think it was on NPR hourly news this morning I heard a segment where the person they interviewed, someone in the EU in Brussels, implicated 'hate-speech' in causing the terrorist attacks in Paris. I'd never heard that line of reasoning and think it sounds pretty dangerous. Came off as sort of victim blaming to me.
  - tehrei 10y ago
    Well if you all stop making fun of Muhammed peace be upon him, maybe the terrorist attacks would stop.
- dimino 10y ago
  Free speech: "I fucking hate white people holy shit with their mayonnaise and classic rock god damn." Hate speech: "On Decembruary 45th I call all my allies to throw glitter at every white person you see because they're so sweaty from the mayonnaise eating, and it'll stick to them." There's never been protection for hate speech.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    It's not the "hate speech" that puts you in trouble there, it's the threat of violence.
dang 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11806386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11806386
Animats 10y ago
This is bad. After all, much of what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth could be called hate speech. Much of right-wing talk radio could be called hate speech. While that's a problem, censorship isn't the answer. What we need to do about hate speech from the Islamic direction is make Islam look silly. Religion needs to be laughed at and ridiculed. Some religions are very fragile in the face of ridicule.
- cuckcuckspruce 10y ago
  >Religion needs to be laughed at and ridiculed. One person's laughing and ridicule is another person's blasphemy, defamation, and hate speech. Better hope your appointed bureaucrats in Brussels and your corporate overlords share your sense of humor and don't want to be boycotted today.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    That's kind of the point, though: Anything can be considered "hate-speech" depending on who you ask. That's why speech needs to remain free.
  - Animats 10y ago
    One person's laughing and ridicule is another person's blasphemy, defamation, and hate speech. Yes. Around 2011, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation was trying to get the UN to push for worldwide criminalization of "defamation of religion."[1] That didn't happen, but it was a close thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the...
cuckcuckspruce 10y ago
>Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday. Your appointed bureaucrats in Brussels will decide what you can and can't say on the Internet, and if you're lucky, they'll just ban you if you step out of line. How long until real, honest discourse goes back to Usenet, out of the reach of our corporate overlords?

17 points by randomname2 10y ago

> "... there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate." Sometimes speech is clearly hateful or 'civil', but certainly it is well known there is not a clear distinction between those two categories; there is a large, debated grey area.

dev1n 10y ago

Hate speech is free speech. I don't like how the article associates hate speech with the war on terror within one paragraph. Not a good sign for human rights.

uncoder0 10y ago
I think it was on NPR hourly news this morning I heard a segment where the person they interviewed, someone in the EU in Brussels, implicated 'hate-speech' in causing the terrorist attacks in Paris. I'd never heard that line of reasoning and think it sounds pretty dangerous. Came off as sort of victim blaming to me.
- tehrei 10y ago
  Well if you all stop making fun of Muhammed peace be upon him, maybe the terrorist attacks would stop.
dimino 10y ago
Free speech: "I fucking hate white people holy shit with their mayonnaise and classic rock god damn." Hate speech: "On Decembruary 45th I call all my allies to throw glitter at every white person you see because they're so sweaty from the mayonnaise eating, and it'll stick to them." There's never been protection for hate speech.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  It's not the "hate speech" that puts you in trouble there, it's the threat of violence.

dang 10y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11806386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11806386

Animats 10y ago

This is bad. After all, much of what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth could be called hate speech. Much of right-wing talk radio could be called hate speech. While that's a problem, censorship isn't the answer. What we need to do about hate speech from the Islamic direction is make Islam look silly. Religion needs to be laughed at and ridiculed. Some religions are very fragile in the face of ridicule.

cuckcuckspruce 10y ago
>Religion needs to be laughed at and ridiculed. One person's laughing and ridicule is another person's blasphemy, defamation, and hate speech. Better hope your appointed bureaucrats in Brussels and your corporate overlords share your sense of humor and don't want to be boycotted today.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  That's kind of the point, though: Anything can be considered "hate-speech" depending on who you ask. That's why speech needs to remain free.
- Animats 10y ago
  One person's laughing and ridicule is another person's blasphemy, defamation, and hate speech. Yes. Around 2011, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation was trying to get the UN to push for worldwide criminalization of "defamation of religion."[1] That didn't happen, but it was a close thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the...

cuckcuckspruce 10y ago

>Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday. Your appointed bureaucrats in Brussels will decide what you can and can't say on the Internet, and if you're lucky, they'll just ban you if you step out of line. How long until real, honest discourse goes back to Usenet, out of the reach of our corporate overlords?