YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft Will Create 'Hash' Database To Remove Extremist Content (reuters.com) 262
bongey writes: Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft are teaming up to create a common database to flag extremist videos and pictures. The database is set to go live in 2017. The system will not automatically remove content. Reuters reports: "The companies will share 'hashes' -- unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos -- of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms. 'We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online,' the companies said in a statement on Tuesday. Each company will decide what image and video hashes to add to the database and matching content will not be automatically removed, they said. The database will be up and running in early 2017 and more companies could be brought into the partnership."
and tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
they'll censor whatever the fuck they want to.
Re:and tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This slope is so slippery that there is no possible way to move any direction but down.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Re: and tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
And the problem with your reasoning is that content isn't an issue yet you insist it is. Sticks and stones don't exist virtually, it's just bits and bytes.
Re: and tomorrow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. Liberty, independent thought, seeing "the whole picture", etal are the very things the pro-censor folks absolutely do not want to happen because they don't have control and control of the "discussion" is what they want to serve their own ends. It's a bad idea all the way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.
Re: (Score:2)
A better way to say it is: a newspaper says something. Facebook allows others to say something. A baker becomes a steward of protected classes. AT&T becomes a steward of infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Social networks are TWO-WAY. Its a VERY different thing, which is why different rules should apply. You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.
These companies already take advantage of rules that were provided to protect them, so if they are doing that, it's certainly within our purview to provide some restrictions on them in exchange for that. Providers of Internet services are protected under the DMCA and other laws from being held liable for user-provided content. Well, if they're going to start censoring that content, shouldn't they lose their protection from liability?
Re: (Score:3)
While it's true that these companies can set whatever policies they like, it does not mean these they are not doing harm to liberty in the society as a whole. One of the most difficult aspects of liberty is defending it from those who use theirs to attack it.
Re: (Score:2)
Found a new favorite site?
Re:and tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand
The issue at hand is that a bunch of companies are joining forces to control what you are allowed to see, and are starting off with one of the biggest boogie-men available to them as their reasoning for doing it.
Perhaps you thought that there was a more important issue here?
Re:and tomorrow (Score:5, Interesting)
So we are back to personal responsibility and vigilance, instead of trusting a free content host not to enforce its terms of service?
Yawn. It's not censorship, you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.
I'm okay with this until tales of abuses show up, and then I'm judging each side accordingly. Until then, there's nothing to do but spread the information.
And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass, not the first of your slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is censorship, it's just not illegal censorship. If all major media companies started to censor certain controversial positions, they could certainly shape discourse and have a negative effect on society - there's no reason to not acknowledge that huge potential downside simply because they're presently within their rights to curate what they present to people or help people find.
Re:and tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn. It's not censorship
Yet another person who believes "censorship" means "first amendment violation." This is absolutely censorship, though it's "acceptable" because:
you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.
They're perfectly free to censor their content, it's their house.
And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass
I won't call you an ass, but you are the ignorant party here. That's not something to be proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if I had a dollar for every time this ignorant statement was made, I'd be one rich mofo.
Censorship is defined by action, not by who does it. It being acceptable or not is at least partially defined by who does it. It's an elementary difference.
Re: (Score:2)
When is Social Medias influence on elections and society enough that they should be stewards of free speech? Just like phone companies are stewards by not restricting on political ideological grounds. Or a baker who becomes a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes? We seem to think 'you are a private business and do what you want' until you become a baker exercising religious belief or AT&T that has been determined critical for the nation. If medias influence on the elections are a critical issu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm okay with this until tales of abuses show up,
They won't show up, and you'll never see them, so you'll just think everything is fine (until you notice your content has been removed). Which part of "remove content" did you not understand?
Re: (Score:2)
If you were talking to someone on your phone about some hot-button political or social issue and the operator cut in and informed you that
Re: and tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Extremist meaning content actually calling for immediate violence against others, or just being against safe spaces, multigender pronouns, and other nonsense like that?
Whatever they want it to mean.
What is your problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
they'll censor whatever the fuck they want to.
Dude, WTF? Wake up. ... It's freakin' FACEBOOK! They can and could always do whatever the f*ck they want! With your content, with your data, ... they could eben change their TOS to allow them to superimpose everyones portrait on animal porn images and there'd be nothing for you to do about it other than delete your account and and all your data and hope that no one downloaded those images to their computer or other parts of the intarweb.
I'd say FB and Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they're allowed to do that, doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Yeah, its censorship. There is a difference between censorship of fake news or calls to arms to fight (insert target here) or censoring kiddie porn, with suppressing an otherwise legal POV. And its probably not a good idea to pull ye olde slippery slope argument.
Who was it that said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
SpongeBob SquarePants if I recall correctly. Too bad Evelyn B. Hall wasn't allowed to prove her boast. Are you of similar mind? Would you commit suicide or kill someone to allow me to say "I have a lovely bunch of coconuts" if someone tried to sto
Re: (Score:2)
and when they flag trump well they may be like put him back or lose all of there H1B's
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is some radical views are helpful to society. They are often considered radical because it is demanding a change to a problem that is failed to be recognized. However with "Fake News" we are getting people radicalized over issues that do not exist.
Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats.
Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up thei
Re: (Score:2)
Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats. Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up their anger from not feeling the ability to speak their believes. I would like to find some way to flag truthfulness of stories. So we can get a good idea on the nature of the story.
Well, you can start by not embellishing stories to make a point. The guy that went into Comet Ping Pong fired one shot into the floor, which is bad enough, but your description made it sound like he did lots of damage with multiple gunshots. Should your post be censored as "fake news"? I would flag it "mostly true", since he did fire a shot inside the place. 7 out of 10 for truthfulness, but still misleading.
Unfortunately I think you'd be hard pressed to find much that fits into the "News - Validated: Ne
Re: (Score:2)
Except they simply can't effectively censor anything. If spam were an easy problem, it would have been solved in the mid 1990s.
If they really want to try, then Facebook and Twitter are basically non-players in this game, and the ball is in Youtube (Google's) court to expand its malware protection to include brain malware. But if they ever push too hard, people can just use another browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship on a place like the internet is outright stupid. All you get with it is to move the discussion somewhere else, where generally there are censors for the opposite side, only aggravating the problem immensely.
The only actual way to combat those said bad ideas is to allow people to freely discuss em.
Ideas can't be killed with bullets, but they sure can be annihilated by better ideas.
There is a reason why ISIS etc also are very censorship happy.
today (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I just figured out the true controversy here.
The "it's no big deal" people just assume that Facebook is already a company that you don't support. It isn't possible for Facebook to disappoint these people, so they wonder, "why all the bitching? So what if someone added a benzene off-taste to a shit-flavored shake? It's not like you were going to drink it, anyway. The benzene is irrelevant."
But for people who still
Perceptual or cryptographic hash? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only 1 bit has to flip to create a mismatch on a cryptographic hash check, and if this system is widespread, doing so will become standard practice.
Re: (Score:3)
Check out Google's reverse image search. It can handle lossy recompression, scaling, contrast/colour changes etc. Their web search can cope with slight changes to text.
Of course it's not perfect, but they say they will have a human review every post and image, so at least the false positive rate should be fairly low.
Re: (Score:2)
> cope with slight changes to text.
That is interesting, for a short enough article, a single comma or letter can switch a article from true to false. Similar with a photo, it will likely match a photo edited to turn a fist into a flip off, or a mirror to make the left hand salute vs right hand, added a nip slip...
Get your edit close enough to be a match, and you'll ride the positive Karma from the original, or bring the original down with your falsified one.Then again it isn't all that difficult with an
Re: (Score:2)
That's a perceptual hash.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm wondering which they will use. A perceptual hash greatly increases the chance of a false positive but greatly decreases the chance of a false negative. A cryptographic hash virtually eliminates any chance of a false positive but allows media files to be trivially altered to get a false negative.
One is a real solution and the other is somewhere between a basic effort and a symbolic effort.
Re: (Score:2)
They will SAY it's a proprietary learning algorithm.
What it will BE is a string of four sweatshop warehouses in the Philippines full of people at desks sitting on folding chairs looking at each image, video and post who get a few extra points toward a 3 cent raise for every thousand instances they do correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
So (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are stupid [...] I would send stormtroopers out regularly to round them [terrorists] up into camps.
Speaking of which...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is people will choose to go with whomever filters content they don't like and promotes content they do like even if it is wrong.
Just look at fox entertainment news.
To be fair MSNBC does the same damn thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The issue is people will choose to go with whomever filters content they don't like and promotes content they do like even if it is wrong.
Just look at fox entertainment news.
To be fair MSNBC does the same damn thing.
Exactly. And the info bubbles will become info force fields. So you'll have two populations, one that is skewed slightly left of reality, and the other that is skewed to an alternate dimension where Donald Trump is competent enough to be President of the United States. Oh wait, we already have that.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't want said companies convicting me in a court of law, but controlling the content on their own websites I think they have the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Show of hands (Score:2)
of everyone who thinks this system will ever only be used to flag and filter " extremist " content.
While I realize this will be a global system, I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States as this will inevitably be a system that will censor information that is embarrassing or uncomfortable to the chosen few who will decide what is " extremist".
Re: (Score:3)
of everyone who thinks this system will ever only be used to flag and filter " extremist " content.
While I realize this will be a global system, I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States as this will inevitably be a system that will censor information that is embarrassing or uncomfortable to the chosen few who will decide what is " extremist".
So tired of everyone not understanding what the First Amendment is. Go read it. It's short and sweet. I'll even give you a hint: "Congress shall make no law..."
Re: Show of hands (Score:2)
Have you ever read the US (or foreign) antitrust laws? This kind of converted action by dominant market participants -- especially if (as seems likely) they get caught putting anything except terrorist media in the database -- is extremely easy to prosecute as illegal collusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever read the US (or foreign) antitrust laws? This kind of converted action by dominant market participants -- especially if (as seems likely) they get caught putting anything except terrorist media in the database -- is extremely easy to prosecute as illegal collusion.
Yet, as was my point, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say that a presidential order restricting speech could act in ways that a Congressional law could not? That would technically avoid violating the 1st, since Congress has made no law. Your general point is correct, that private entities aren't subject to the first amendment directly. But it's important to note that the US constitution is more than just the written document, it is also all the court precedents which surround it. The UK has *no* written constitution the way the US has, it is all precedent and tradition. My point is you don't need to be quite so tired.
A presidential order restricting speech would have absolutely no force of law (regardless of what Trump may think). I agree whole-heartedly that the US Constitution is more than the words, and includes all the court precedents which surround it. Still, this is not a First Amendment issue and I wish people would get that whenever ZOMG censorship happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the governments that are pushing for this.
Congress shall make no law......instead make a bunch of regulations that make corporations liable or put financial pressure on them for the expressions of free speech of others and get what they want by proxy.
I don't see any regulations, financial pressures, or threats regarding this. Isn't it just possible they think this will just make them look good and have decided to do it on their own?
Re: (Score:2)
"Hidden" in the linked article it refers to gov't pressure to remove content.
"Tech companies have long resisted outside intervention in how their sites should be policed, but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks."
Comments here specifically refer to the U.S. First Amendment, so if the "Western governments" refers to countries exclusive of the U.S., then those comments would still apply, but the gist is that th
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States as this will inevitably be a system that will censor information that is embarrassing or uncomfortable to the chosen few who will decide what is "extremist".
This won't butt heads with the First Amendment in the slightest, because the limitations it applies only applies to government entities, not private ones. You have no right to free speech on somebody else's private platform. They decide the rules and you are free to not use their service.
Re: (Score:2)
They operate on the infrastructure that is managed by AT&T and the likes that is subsidized by tax payers. A baker is a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes. AT&T are stewards for access to infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not protecting free speech if we value freedom of speech as a society?
If Facebook is a soapbox in a town-square, why should they have the right to restrict what is said on that box if it cannot exist without the town-square when we don't even hold the same for
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States
First Amendment doesn't apply in the same way a graffiti artist can't claim a first amendment right to spray paint his thoughts on a privately owned wall.
The people having content removed are free to set up their own web sites and host whatever content they want. They are not granted the same rights to post whatever they want on someone else's private property.
Re: (Score:2)
The people having content removed are free to set up their own web sites and host whatever content they want. They are not granted the same rights to post whatever they want on someone else's private property.
I guess in the same vein that if AT&T restricted access on political ideological grounds, you are free to set up your own lines? Facebook and others can't exist without the infrastructure that is subsidized by tax payers. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech like a baker is a steward to protected classes for wedding cakes? Last I checked, wedding cakes don't have the same impact on our elections as these enablers of speech do if Obama and the media are to be believed with their 'fake news'
Re: (Score:2)
Rights of the private owner. Facebook owns Facebook's servers.
There is a company called Lamar around here that runs a bunch of billboards. Should I be allowed to paint over their billboards with a message of my choice?
The answer is no, not without their permission.. Even though government pays for the roads that one uses to access those billboards.
Facebook's servers are their property it's their billboards. You and I do not have a right to post whatever we want there. It's private property.
Re: (Score:2)
It's private just like a baker restricting their service on religious grounds until the government steps in and then the baker becomes a steward of rights for protected classes. Would you be okay with restrictions on access to phone lines on ideological grounds from AT&T? If enabling conversation on ideological neutral infrastructure is important, how is that different on the AT&T fiber lines vs Facebook servers? Why is AT&T forced to adopt civic responsibility but Facebook does not when Faceboo
Re: (Score:2)
This will not butt heads with the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. These are private companies, they are not obligated to post anyone's fake news.
When a company controls so much of the screen real estate, this actually moves beyond what they're allowed to censor. Otherwise they can create their own views, tell you what's acceptable, and of course how to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
When a company controls so much of the screen real estate, this actually moves beyond what they're allowed to censor. Otherwise they can create their own views, tell you what's acceptable, and of course how to vote.
Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not posting everyone's posts? Do you really want the government to have that much power over media companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't posting their content, and if the media companies deny that this content was ever posted on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the servers to m
Re: (Score:2)
Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not connecting everyone's call? Do you really want the government to have that much power over telecommunication companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't connecting their call, and if the telecommunication companies deny that this call was ever connected on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the phone lines to monitor if the connections are in fact ever made. Who is to determine how big a telecommunications company is before the government takes control of it?
FTFY. We force a baker to be stewards of protected classes for a wedding cake. We force telecommunication companies to be stewards of access to infrastructure. Social media influenced the election and if Obama is to be believed about 'fake news', shouldn't enablers of speech be held to the same standard as the baker or AT&T with the ideals we deem important as society? Social media wouldn't exist without the infrastructure yet you would be upset if a phone company shut off your access because of your po
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States
This will not butt heads with the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. These are private companies, they are not obligated to post anyone's fake news.
Or real news.
I agree that this is their right. It is still ripe for abuse. This is clearly coming as a result of people pissed that Trump was able to use social media to get around the mainstream news organizations constant barrage of hate and distortion of everything he said.
This is just a play to move the power back to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.
Honestly, for a world wide platform, how are they really expecting this to work? You have countries- including the US - that can devote huge resources to flagging an
Re: (Score:3)
This is so profoundly dangerous! (Score:4, Interesting)
No different from China (Score:2)
Re:No different from China (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we didnt. It was symbiotic relationship that AT&T entered willingly. Forcing common carrier rules, would actually infringe on the ISP's free speech. They are free to carry whatever they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you reach a certain threshold of users, common carrier rules should apply.
That sounds like an issue of having clear rules. By all means might I redirect you to the US Congress website? I'm pretty sure that if the people who said they're tired of rules with the clarity of mud actually did something about that issue we might start getting lawmakers that actually thought out legislation rather than the typical knee jerk. But both the issue of people doing something about it and intelligent lawmakers are just wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
As the Jakov Smirnoff joke goes, "In Soviet Union, the government controls the corporations".
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
In China government is from government, here government is done by private business.
Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
Yeah, the government has nothing to do with this: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Keep on keeping on. Critical thought is not required in order to live.
What was the difference again? Oh right. One government person can not arbitrarily decide something can be censored, like in China. It has to be a group of government people. All the difference in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
It's still chilling and pervasive censorship!? You can call the oppressors what you will, they are still oppressors of human freedom. Who has more real power in the world: companies, governments... people? Will you actually be allowed to see this message? Think for yourself
It's quite a difference when the censorship is done by the people with the guns as opposed to the people selling shiny stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of an easy assignment, don't you think?
The Chinese government censors. If you don't use their filters, they view that as circumvention and reserve the right to force you to use the filter.
The listed companies, on the other hand, would use a word like "competition" instead of "circumvention." They totally and completely lack the ability to censor, and in fact don't even have the mindset and
Multiple use technology (Score:3)
I'm sure many of you have had the same thought but there is no way in hell this would be used merely for "extremist" content.
First off good luck consistently defining extremist. Sometimes it's obvious but sometimes it's a matter of perspective. There is no bright line test.
Second, sometime "extreme" viewpoints are merely sane ones being suppressed by another group. Fifty years ago people arguing peacefully for civil rights for minorities were considered "extremist" by our own government.
Third, you know for a fact that what this will actually be used for is cross site protection of copyrighted material that has nothing to do with any extreme viewpoints because the technology has more than one use. But it's easy to develop it to ostensibly combat "extremism" and then quietly use it for other purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure many of you have had the same thought but there is no way in hell this would be used merely for "extremist" content.
If said companies overstep their bounds customers are free to form rival websites that are not run by over zealous individuals.
Good luck with that (Score:2)
If said companies overstep their bounds customers are free to form rival websites that are not run by over zealous individuals.
Ok go ahead and start a company that will supplant Google. Good luck with that. Back here in the real world we understand that market forces do not solve every problem and in fact it market forces are the source of many of them. You are being very glib with a non-solution to a very real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There is not currently a good business case to try and "supplant Google". If google were to sufficiently anger the masses, people would be actively looking for an alternative and a business case would exist.
In this case, absolutely, market forces solve the problem. Just like the famous case of Ford only selling black cars. "Who will replace the behemoth Ford and sell colourful cars?"
As it turned out, lots of people, it sold and Ford had to follow suit. If Google were to become a pariah not delivering wh
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 (Score:2)
Hashes...? Darwin In Action. Your human evolutionary selection will faver bad speling from now on. No! We mean URLs! +#hastTagWarz ?Add=aField&Remove=uniqueIDpowerfjonrfoijnqrf&Remove=ArticleSelector free speech collateral damage resulting in, "An unexpected censorship error has occurred. No one is available to figure out why Life Sucks, but the suckage sure eats a lot of money an effort. Just like cell phones... swallow.
Re: (Score:2)
The debate is over. (Score:3)
Twitter suspended 235,000 accounts between February and August this year and has expanded the teams reviewing reports of extremist content.
This is merely a mechanism to share what one mega-company has found "extreme" with another.
If we're really lucky, this will cause some folks to (shudder) lose a bit of respect for these places people spend their lives.
Boy, am I going to be busy! (Score:3)
So any network gets to censor something, and they automatically censor it across other networks! I love it! ...As long as I get to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary it doesn't automatically remove content on other networks, so no.
It flags content for the owners of the other networks to review to see if they agree it should be removed.
Dissent will be fake news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dissent will be labelled fake news (Score:2)
These three companies primarily want
- to continue to make money from us, by showing they're paying attention, and
- to not get thrown in jail.
I expect, like Lauren Weinstein (http://factsquad.com, https://lauren.vortex.com/2016... [vortex.com]), that labelling fake news will be the most likely approach. That avoids the jail problem (:-))
To ensure they look "fair", I suspect that crowd-sourcing is the way theywill get leads, but not how the initial decision to label will be made. I expect them to do a sort --un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A step towards irrelevance... (Score:2)
I am sure that someone will take up the true ideology of freedom of speech that will still provide unbiased information which is what is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, what do advertising networks have to do with anything?
I know that shouln't be even asked... (Score:2)
But will it work with Isis videos?
Censorship it's purest form/motives (Score:2)
That's why alternatives are paramount (Score:2)
This is why I've migrated to gab.ai and infogalactic.com. These hashes are the start for censoring anything they deem inappropriate, including political dissident discourse. Twitter has already banned thousands of users for posting anti-islamic content even though it's fact based.
We need open platforms if we expect to have freedom of expression. Hate speech can be re-defined until it covers anything they want.
Leave big social media, don't produce content for them. Embrace new open platforms.
Quick and nice? idea (Score:2)
Just treating the symptoms (Score:2)
I get that people want terrorist content to be censored. There are obvious moral, ethical, and political problems with such censorship, and they are being thoroughly debated in other threads here. But I think we need to ask some deeper questions. Why are citizens of ostensibly free nations, (such as America), so drawn to becoming fundamentalist terrorists that we have to try to 'cover their eyes' with censorship? And why are fundamentalists in Muslim countries SO angry with the 'infidels' that they are will
Re: (Score:2)