4 ms·

I think removing extremist content is a good idea overall (although this then begs the question, how do you legally define extremist content?[1]), but I feel li

by yladiz 8y ago

I think removing extremist content is a good idea overall (although this then begs the question, how do you legally define extremist content?[1]), but I feel like 1 hour is a bit tough, primarily because 1 hour can mean different things: does it mean from being reported, or being uploaded? This question isn’t covered in the article and it’s an important distinction I feel. 1: the problem being that a lot of religious texts could be defined as “extremist” if an ill defined law is created. I guess you have to define directly what content would be considered extremist, e.g. any video from a known terrorist/terrorist group like ISIL, which will never be perfect but better than having a definition that’s too loose.

wccrawford 8y ago
I think we can assume that it's within 1 hour of being reported, not uploaded, since there's no way to guarantee everything that's uploaded is fully checked, even with a staff large enough to look at it all and make decisions more than a few seconds long. But that problem also basically exists for smaller sites under the "1 hour after reported" rule, too. IMO, it would basically force them to hide anything that was reported immediately, and then restore it after it was moderated. That will make it horrifyingly easy for internet trolls to mess with things.
- l9k 8y ago
  For a small website with a team working 9-5 and no advanced AI moderation, that would mean that they can't let users upload things outside of working hours...
- yladiz 8y ago
  I’m not sure though, because of this quote: > In March, the EU's civil service published details of the current voluntary arrangement, which noted that "terrorist content is most harmful in the first hours of its appearance online". This makes me think it may be timed from the upload, not the report.
  - wccrawford 8y ago
    Then that would basically mean that all content would have to be moderated in the EU, which would cripple forums and chat sites. I can't even begin to imagine what repercussions that will have.
- zerebubuth 8y ago
  I don't think we can assume it's within 1 hour of being reported. The press release also says: > In addition to referrals, internet companies should implement proactive measures, including automated detection, to effectively and swiftly remove or disable terrorist content and stop it from reappearing once it has been removed. To me, that sounds a lot like they're willing to mandate AI detection in order to "solve" the "team is asleep" problem. They suggest this might be yet another rent-seeking opportunity for big internet platforms: > To assist smaller platforms, companies should share and optimise appropriate technological tools and put in place working arrangements for better cooperation with the relevant authorities, including Europol. No doubt, some "helpful" authorities will provide an "appropriate technological tool" to help. No need for the government to break Perfect Forward Secrecy if every site is giving it clear-text access to all uploaded content.
marcoperaza 8y ago
>I think removing extremist content is a good idea overall (although this then begs the question, how do you legally define extremist content?[1]) Whatever the people with power say it is. The whole point of free speech is to prevent this kind of thing. This isn’t some minor flaw you’ve identified, but the entire reason why freedom of speech is necessary.
- yladiz 8y ago
  In cases like this I’m ok with a restriction to true freedom of speech. For example, I am ok with making saying the holocaust didn’t happen illegal, or making Nazi imagery illegal even though it is a restriction on speech. I feel like this falls under a similar umbrella. Essentially it boils down to having to trust the lawmakers, and I do by and large trust the lawmakers in the EU, moreso than in the states.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    >I am ok with making saying the holocaust didn’t happen illegal, or making Nazi imagery illegal even though it is a restriction on speech. People don’t deserve punishment for the contents of their conscience or their beliefs, no matter how wrong their beliefs are. To take a man’s freedom for speaking his mind is one of the most abhorrent things you can do in this world. Why is it that the Nazi iconography and holocaust denial is always singled out, but no one ever bans Soviet apologia or imagery? Could it be that the powerful forces in Europe are more sympathetic to one side than the other? Both are clear cut cases of murderous regimes whose ideas belong in the history books, but already the censors you are eager to trust are abusing their power to further their political agenda.
    - drivingmenuts 8y ago
      > Soviet apologia or imagery Is that actually a bigger problem in the EU than it has been in the past? There have always been admirers of the USSR in every country, but if I recall, they've always been a tiny percentage compared to Nazi apologists, aside from Russia. I also don't recall any of them being outright racist and calling for wholesale destruction in the way that other extremists have done. I could be wrong there - I'm not a huge consumer of Nazi or Soviet propaganda.
raxxorrax 8y ago
I really think there is absolutely no evidence that "extremist content" is a serious problem that would warrant infrastructure to moderate or censor content. What if we try to quantify the problem? How many people are really affected? And in which direction? I think a closer inspection would quickly reveal that it is not a particular video or text that drives people to the edges and has more to do with the general reaction to terrorism for example. "Extremist content" could very well be the rock'n'roll of the seventies. And wrong people are already getting banned. And not for being "extremists". Seriously, if wiser people just decided to completely drop the topic immediately, the problem which still lacks quantification, would be nearly invisible.

by yladiz 8y ago

wccrawford 8y ago

I think we can assume that it's within 1 hour of being reported, not uploaded, since there's no way to guarantee everything that's uploaded is fully checked, even with a staff large enough to look at it all and make decisions more than a few seconds long. But that problem also basically exists for smaller sites under the "1 hour after reported" rule, too. IMO, it would basically force them to hide anything that was reported immediately, and then restore it after it was moderated. That will make it horrifyingly easy for internet trolls to mess with things.

l9k 8y ago
For a small website with a team working 9-5 and no advanced AI moderation, that would mean that they can't let users upload things outside of working hours...
yladiz 8y ago
I’m not sure though, because of this quote: > In March, the EU's civil service published details of the current voluntary arrangement, which noted that "terrorist content is most harmful in the first hours of its appearance online". This makes me think it may be timed from the upload, not the report.
- wccrawford 8y ago
  Then that would basically mean that all content would have to be moderated in the EU, which would cripple forums and chat sites. I can't even begin to imagine what repercussions that will have.
zerebubuth 8y ago
I don't think we can assume it's within 1 hour of being reported. The press release also says: > In addition to referrals, internet companies should implement proactive measures, including automated detection, to effectively and swiftly remove or disable terrorist content and stop it from reappearing once it has been removed. To me, that sounds a lot like they're willing to mandate AI detection in order to "solve" the "team is asleep" problem. They suggest this might be yet another rent-seeking opportunity for big internet platforms: > To assist smaller platforms, companies should share and optimise appropriate technological tools and put in place working arrangements for better cooperation with the relevant authorities, including Europol. No doubt, some "helpful" authorities will provide an "appropriate technological tool" to help. No need for the government to break Perfect Forward Secrecy if every site is giving it clear-text access to all uploaded content.

marcoperaza 8y ago

>I think removing extremist content is a good idea overall (although this then begs the question, how do you legally define extremist content?[1]) Whatever the people with power say it is. The whole point of free speech is to prevent this kind of thing. This isn’t some minor flaw you’ve identified, but the entire reason why freedom of speech is necessary.

yladiz 8y ago
In cases like this I’m ok with a restriction to true freedom of speech. For example, I am ok with making saying the holocaust didn’t happen illegal, or making Nazi imagery illegal even though it is a restriction on speech. I feel like this falls under a similar umbrella. Essentially it boils down to having to trust the lawmakers, and I do by and large trust the lawmakers in the EU, moreso than in the states.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  >I am ok with making saying the holocaust didn’t happen illegal, or making Nazi imagery illegal even though it is a restriction on speech. People don’t deserve punishment for the contents of their conscience or their beliefs, no matter how wrong their beliefs are. To take a man’s freedom for speaking his mind is one of the most abhorrent things you can do in this world. Why is it that the Nazi iconography and holocaust denial is always singled out, but no one ever bans Soviet apologia or imagery? Could it be that the powerful forces in Europe are more sympathetic to one side than the other? Both are clear cut cases of murderous regimes whose ideas belong in the history books, but already the censors you are eager to trust are abusing their power to further their political agenda.
  - drivingmenuts 8y ago
    > Soviet apologia or imagery Is that actually a bigger problem in the EU than it has been in the past? There have always been admirers of the USSR in every country, but if I recall, they've always been a tiny percentage compared to Nazi apologists, aside from Russia. I also don't recall any of them being outright racist and calling for wholesale destruction in the way that other extremists have done. I could be wrong there - I'm not a huge consumer of Nazi or Soviet propaganda.

raxxorrax 8y ago

I really think there is absolutely no evidence that "extremist content" is a serious problem that would warrant infrastructure to moderate or censor content. What if we try to quantify the problem? How many people are really affected? And in which direction? I think a closer inspection would quickly reveal that it is not a particular video or text that drives people to the edges and has more to do with the general reaction to terrorism for example. "Extremist content" could very well be the rock'n'roll of the seventies. And wrong people are already getting banned. And not for being "extremists". Seriously, if wiser people just decided to completely drop the topic immediately, the problem which still lacks quantification, would be nearly invisible.