11 ms·

>"Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit, and so it will interpret very slippery concepts such as “hate speech” and “inciting

>"Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit, and so it will interpret very slippery concepts such as “hate speech” and “inciting violence” to please those who wield the greatest power." This story does everything other than show a single example of hate speech and inciting violence posts being a "slippery concept" or a single example of Israel asking for something to be removed that doesnt directly incite violence. I cant imagine someone thinking a video of a cleric waving a knife telling his followers to stab Jews or of little kids being taught to stab jews as being slippery or possibly interpreted as not inciting violence. The only thing mentioned is that Israel will help Facebook identify violence inciting posts...not hate speech, not political speech, strictly violence inciting posts...and the Author goes out on a massive limb to paint a picture of censorship and abuse of power and finger pointing at other offenders... remove any calls to violence...especially when you can directly link it to actual violence! Edit: updated quotes

whamlastxmas 10y ago
>legal obligation to maximize profit Wasting my breath because this comes up so often, but this is not in any way true.
- davemel37 10y ago
  I was citing the article. I think the author's point was a publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. I agree with you though.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    >has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value Even that is arguably not true. The only real responsibility of a director is to not act in his or her own self interest to the detriment of the company. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
    - davemel37 10y ago
      Thanks, thats a fascinating read. I guess my first point would be that I said, "fiduciary responsibility" not legal obligation. I really loved this quote at the end... "the idea that good decisions are the product of orderly processes – is more alive than ever in public affairs. ...There is not, and never will be, such a science. Our objectives are typically imprecise, multifaceted and change as we progress towards them – and properly so. Our decisions depend on the responses of others, and on what we anticipate these responses will be. The world is complex and imperfectly known, and this will remain true however much we analyse it."
bitchypat 10y ago
Slippery enough? (The timing is impeccable) https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr...
- kstenerud 10y ago
  What does that have to do with incitement to violence?
- milankragujevic 10y ago
  Ha ha ha, hillaryclinton.com. Pepe is not a white supremacy symbol, however some white supremacists may also use the Pepe frog meme. Declaring an innocent frog used by weirdos on 4chan how just want to be edgy and cool to be a white supremacy symbol is, frankly, naive.
  - mafribe 10y ago
    naive It's not naive, but a well-executed damage-control move to detract attention away from Mrs Clinton's health problems. The ludicrousness of discussing frogs close to the election of the world's sole superpower is part of the effectiveness of the move.
- davemel37 10y ago
  Your post proved my point...If you cited the ADL, I would maybe think there was some truth to it...but citing the hillary campaign, which needed an entire blog post to paint this far fetched picture, clearly the author is off on their witch hunt, and not actually reporting on anything of true concern. Real hate speech and real inciting of violence is obvious to the naked eye. It doesn't need a house of cards built under it to come into focus. Edit: Just to be clear, the original article says nothing about Israel helping censor hate speech, just speech that incites violence. There is nothing slippery or subjective about "calling on the public to stab Israeli's and Jews in the streets"
- mi100hael 10y ago
  Man, that's an impressive amount of bullshit in one article, even for a politician.
pdeuchler 10y ago
This is not the point. The point is that there now exists backchannels between governments and corporations who control modern communication, and those backchannels are being used to censor anything. The content of the messages does not matter one iota, they could have the best intentions in the world. The slippery slope is that we have people in power making decisions without checks and balances, and especially without the checks and balances we already have in place. Even assuming intentions pure as driven snow eventually those backchannels will be abused. It is a matter of when, not if. That is the slippery slope.
- davemel37 10y ago
  You are making a few incorrect assumptions. 1. Israel isn't censoring anything. They are offering to help Facebook identify content that FB already determined they will remove(inciting violence.) 2. Governments in every country already control communication, Working directly with Facebook is a step towards less government control, not more. 3. The article mentions that hate speech is a slippery topic, not slope. The article is NOT saying abuse might happen in the future, it is saying that determining what is hate speech or inciting violence is slippery implying its arbitrary and subjective...but inciting violence is not subjective at all IMHO, which all that is being discussed. 4. This idea that slippery slope and the importance of free speech is absolute is ridiculous! In my opinion, that all flies out the window when someones life is at stake. Period. Saving a Life is more important than theoretical slippery slopes. Yes, abuse is always a risk, but in my opinion, I would rather elected officials, we can vote out, be the ones who we are trusting over a corporation that we have absolutely no say or control over. Facebook's ability to manipulate, control and influence the world is WAY MORE TROUBLING TO ME THAN AN ELECTED (AND ACCOUNTABLE) OFFICIAL's ability to potentially abuse power! Edit: added the word NOT to point 3.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Almost all of your points are ridiculously wrong and some sound like a parody of Orwell. Here, just concerning no 3: There are different mechanisms by which speech is regulated. It's well accepted that you can be held responsible for your speech if it's illegal (i.e. defamation or the "FIRE!"-yelling classic). This is different from censorship in that speech is regulated after it's published, not before. It's also a widely-held misconception that life is more important than anything. Quick thought experiment: - Current estimates are that costs about 38,000$ to save a life for the most efficient NGOs. - Say the US presidential election costs about 5 billion. => Should we cancel the election or let those 125,000 people die?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

whamlastxmas 10y ago

>legal obligation to maximize profit Wasting my breath because this comes up so often, but this is not in any way true.

davemel37 10y ago
I was citing the article. I think the author's point was a publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. I agree with you though.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value Even that is arguably not true. The only real responsibility of a director is to not act in his or her own self interest to the detriment of the company. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
  - davemel37 10y ago
    Thanks, thats a fascinating read. I guess my first point would be that I said, "fiduciary responsibility" not legal obligation. I really loved this quote at the end... "the idea that good decisions are the product of orderly processes – is more alive than ever in public affairs. ...There is not, and never will be, such a science. Our objectives are typically imprecise, multifaceted and change as we progress towards them – and properly so. Our decisions depend on the responses of others, and on what we anticipate these responses will be. The world is complex and imperfectly known, and this will remain true however much we analyse it."

bitchypat 10y ago

Slippery enough? (The timing is impeccable) https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr...

kstenerud 10y ago
What does that have to do with incitement to violence?
milankragujevic 10y ago
Ha ha ha, hillaryclinton.com. Pepe is not a white supremacy symbol, however some white supremacists may also use the Pepe frog meme. Declaring an innocent frog used by weirdos on 4chan how just want to be edgy and cool to be a white supremacy symbol is, frankly, naive.
- mafribe 10y ago
  naive It's not naive, but a well-executed damage-control move to detract attention away from Mrs Clinton's health problems. The ludicrousness of discussing frogs close to the election of the world's sole superpower is part of the effectiveness of the move.
davemel37 10y ago
Your post proved my point...If you cited the ADL, I would maybe think there was some truth to it...but citing the hillary campaign, which needed an entire blog post to paint this far fetched picture, clearly the author is off on their witch hunt, and not actually reporting on anything of true concern. Real hate speech and real inciting of violence is obvious to the naked eye. It doesn't need a house of cards built under it to come into focus. Edit: Just to be clear, the original article says nothing about Israel helping censor hate speech, just speech that incites violence. There is nothing slippery or subjective about "calling on the public to stab Israeli's and Jews in the streets"
mi100hael 10y ago
Man, that's an impressive amount of bullshit in one article, even for a politician.

pdeuchler 10y ago

This is not the point. The point is that there now exists backchannels between governments and corporations who control modern communication, and those backchannels are being used to censor anything. The content of the messages does not matter one iota, they could have the best intentions in the world. The slippery slope is that we have people in power making decisions without checks and balances, and especially without the checks and balances we already have in place. Even assuming intentions pure as driven snow eventually those backchannels will be abused. It is a matter of when, not if. That is the slippery slope.

davemel37 10y ago
You are making a few incorrect assumptions. 1. Israel isn't censoring anything. They are offering to help Facebook identify content that FB already determined they will remove(inciting violence.) 2. Governments in every country already control communication, Working directly with Facebook is a step towards less government control, not more. 3. The article mentions that hate speech is a slippery topic, not slope. The article is NOT saying abuse might happen in the future, it is saying that determining what is hate speech or inciting violence is slippery implying its arbitrary and subjective...but inciting violence is not subjective at all IMHO, which all that is being discussed. 4. This idea that slippery slope and the importance of free speech is absolute is ridiculous! In my opinion, that all flies out the window when someones life is at stake. Period. Saving a Life is more important than theoretical slippery slopes. Yes, abuse is always a risk, but in my opinion, I would rather elected officials, we can vote out, be the ones who we are trusting over a corporation that we have absolutely no say or control over. Facebook's ability to manipulate, control and influence the world is WAY MORE TROUBLING TO ME THAN AN ELECTED (AND ACCOUNTABLE) OFFICIAL's ability to potentially abuse power! Edit: added the word NOT to point 3.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Almost all of your points are ridiculously wrong and some sound like a parody of Orwell. Here, just concerning no 3: There are different mechanisms by which speech is regulated. It's well accepted that you can be held responsible for your speech if it's illegal (i.e. defamation or the "FIRE!"-yelling classic). This is different from censorship in that speech is regulated after it's published, not before. It's also a widely-held misconception that life is more important than anything. Quick thought experiment: - Current estimates are that costs about 38,000$ to save a life for the most efficient NGOs. - Say the US presidential election costs about 5 billion. => Should we cancel the election or let those 125,000 people die?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]