More Than 50 Nations Launch 'Paris Call' To Fix Hate Speech and Cyberattacks; China and Russia Not Among Signatories, Trump Administration Reluctant To Sign (reuters.com) 313
French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday launched a push to regulate the internet.
France and U.S. technology giants, including Microsoft, are pushing for governments and companies worldwide to sign up for a new initiative aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship. A report adds: With the launch of a declaration entitled the 'Paris call for trust and security in cyberspace,' French President Emmanuel Macron is hoping to revive efforts to regulate cyberspace after the last round of United Nations negotiations failed in 2017.
In the document, which is supported by many European countries but, crucially, not China or Russia, the signatories urge governments to beef up protections against cyber meddling in elections and prevent the theft of trade secrets. The Paris call was initially pushed for by tech companies but was redrafted by French officials to include work done by U.N. experts in recent years. [...] In another sign of the Trump administration's reluctance to join international initiatives it sees as a bid to encroach on U.S. sovereignty, French officials said Washington might not become a signatory, though talks are continuing.
In the document, which is supported by many European countries but, crucially, not China or Russia, the signatories urge governments to beef up protections against cyber meddling in elections and prevent the theft of trade secrets. The Paris call was initially pushed for by tech companies but was redrafted by French officials to include work done by U.N. experts in recent years. [...] In another sign of the Trump administration's reluctance to join international initiatives it sees as a bid to encroach on U.S. sovereignty, French officials said Washington might not become a signatory, though talks are continuing.
Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody ever claimed Europeans were smart.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody ever claimed Europeans were honest, either.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your absolutely right, it will be impossible to have a uncensored internet free of hate speech, as the act of removing hate speech is censorship. I would rather have an uncensored web over something free of hate speech.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you hate seeing opinions you disagree with, everything removed will, obviously, be hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
...to beef up protections against cyber meddling in elections and prevent the theft of trade secrets
Looks like none of you actually read the summary. Hate speech isn't mentioned anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
"More Than 50 Nations Launch 'Paris Call' To Fix Hate Speech and Cyberattacks; China and Russia Not Among Signatories, Trump Administration Reluctant To Sign"
That was copied from that green bar above the summary.... whats that called? Oh the title!
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. The issue is more fundamental than that: How do you define hatespeech.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more complex than that. Taking the US as an example, it has relatively strong freedom of speech protections but also still has laws criminalizing certain forms of speech. Divulging official secrets, credible threats, harassment, violating medical confidentiality and so forth.
Naturally the government takes the position that the laws it passes should be enforceable, which means the ability to prosecute and remove that speech with due process.
In other words, no country has absolute unrestricted spee
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate speech is great, it lets you know who the assholes are so you can fire them, expell them, shun them, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference between hate speech and different ideas is whether or not you disagree with it enough to hurt someone over it. This has been the case since the dawn of time, and will never change.
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and hopefully the criminals would be prosecuted for retaliation. Why would you want to push hate underground?
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do.
And I'm a firm believer that the cure to hate or other bad speech is more speech, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the definition of "hate speech" will erode until nothing meaningful remains.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my point. By you speaking more, you proved how irrational and infeasible your position is. Maybe not to yourself, but to those reading this discussion.
Ideas want to be free. Using force to quash them serves only to make them more attractive. Showing their foolishness, like what was done to the KKK, is far more effective.
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm both gay and Jewish. I hear hate speech literally all the time, from left and right.
I'm not your shield for justifying censorship. I'm not your pet to be protected. I'm not an infant who needs your shelter.
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." -- U.S. major justifying bombing and shelling civilian areas in Bán Tre.
"Internet media should spread positive information, uphold the correct political direction, and guide public opinion toward the right direction," the state-run Xinhua news service reported in April, summarizing the instructions of Mr. Xi, who "stressed the centralized, unified leadership of the Party over cybersecurity."
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between Europe and China is that in China the censorship is pure, while in Europe it is diluted with hypocrisy.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not hypocrisy, it's a different understanding of what freedom is.
In the US freedom is mostly about not being preventing from doing what you want. Most of the limits are to prevent harm to other people.
In Europe freedom also includes the opportunity to do things you want to do. So for example education is considered a human right, because without education you are severely limited in your ability to pursue your goals and to pursue happiness. The US has some of this, e.g. education is mandatory and parents can't prevent their kids getting any entirely.
So in this case it's clear to Europeans what they mean. Speech that limits the freedom of others, e.g. by inciting violence against them and making them afraid to live their lives as they wish is anti-freedom. Again, the US does recognize that to a lesser extent with laws against threats.
If you read TFA the main focus is actually not on such speech, it's on the fact that right now it's mostly corporations deciding what speech is acceptable. Many on Slashdot have been calling for companies like Facebook and Twitter to be forced to allow all legal speech rather than just what they wish to tolerate on their sites, so in theory should support this.
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:3, Interesting)
"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." -- U.S. major justifying bombing and shelling civilian areas in BÃn Tre.
Quotes like these are evidence that fake news is not a recent phenomenon. The New York Times made that one up in 1968.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists are supposed to have two sources.
Propaganda, not so important to have verifiable information, so long as it conforms.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???
Exactly. It's like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid.
Unfortunately more and more people eat this shit up. The only thing missing is "think of the children".
"The internet [is] not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet," an official from Macron's office said. "Otherwise, the internet as we know it today -- free, open and secure -- will be damaged by the new threats."
Do these people even hear themselves talk? "We need to regulate the internet to keep it free and open." This is the exact definition of doublespeak.
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Its only an example of doublespeak if you define 'free' to mean 'free of regulations'.
I don't! For me, 'free' means free for me and others to go about our business. I have that freedom in many regulated public spaces - beaches, piazzas, parks, national forests, streets - and it's usually the regulations that have preserved the public space as one amenable to doing my activity in them.
Re: (Score:3)
It would make more sense if you hadn't cut off the first sentence of that quote:
âoeThe internet is a space currently managed by a technical community of private players. But itâ(TM)s not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet,â an official from Macronâ(TM)s office said.
âoeOtherwise, the internet as we know it today â" free, open and secure â" will be damaged by the new threats.â
He is clearly talking about corporations owning the internet, the end of net neutrality and businesses getting to decide what is acceptable online and what isn't.
In other words he is advocating free speech protection from corporation censorship, what many on Slashdot have been demanding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No freedom of speech online. No freedom after speech.
Think tanks, NGO and EU governments will report users content and comments.
No funny comments about French politics. No comments about Catalan independence.
Summary says the opposite (Score:2)
I suppose they could be lying though. But there's plenty of folks in America complaining about Alex Jones or Gab getting censored. And if China's not signing on then I'm inclined to think they're serious about combating online censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Link to article with the full text: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr... [diplomatie.gouv.fr]
Text:
Cyberspace now plays a crucial role in every aspect of our lives and it is the shared responsibility of a wide variety of actors, in their respective roles, to improve trust, security and stability in cyberspace. We reaffirm our support to an open, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful cyberspace, which has become an integral component of life in all its social, economic, cult
Re: Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Funny)
No one expects the European Inquisition?
Re: (Score:2)
What would even be bad about a One World Government?
Most the global issues today come around because governments can't agree on things.
Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
"aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship"
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)
I think the intent is clear: censorship by the good guys is a praiseworthy protection against hate speech. Censorship by the bad guys is deplorable. Doublethink is key to duckspeak.
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)
They can call it whatever they like that sounds noble.
The end result will be legally enforced censorship.
We legally enforce censorship all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with censoring threats of violence, and I saw nothing in the articles to indicate anything more was being proposed. Now, to be fair both articles were lite on substance but we could do with a bit more of a swing in the other direction. Where I am (America) we've got bi-weekly mass shootings and daily shootings, many of which are racially motivated. I'm gettin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. We don't censor.
2. The crime of an actionable threat of violence is in the intent of violence, not speaking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
post a threat to kill the president of the United States and see how long until you get a visit from Uncle Sam and his G-Men.
There's nothing wrong with censoring threats of violence, and I saw nothing in the articles to indicate anything more was being proposed. Now, to be fair both articles were lite on substance but we could do with a bit more of a swing in the other direction. Where I am (America) we've got bi-weekly mass shootings and daily shootings, many of which are racially motivated.
Should criticizing Muhammad be a criminal act in the USA too?
https://www.newsweek.com/calli... [newsweek.com]
I'm getting more than a bit nervous and I'm a white guy. I don't want us being the next Reich
No idea what this is supposed to mean.
If you're doing it with the specific purpose (Score:2)
And I don't think I could have been much clearer, but here's trying: I'm afraid we're going to start killing Jews. Or Muslims. Or Blacks. Or some other minority when the economy gets bad enough. It's not just about normalizing violence and racial hatred, it's about the eco
Re: (Score:3)
We legally enforce censorship all the time post a threat to kill the president of the United States and see how long until you get a visit from Uncle Sam and his G-Men.
Do they actually force you to remove the threat? It was my understanding that they don't. The Secret Service just wants to know if you're a credible threat or not. Your speech isn't censored. It just has consequences. And if you're not actually a credible threat, the consequences amount to momentary inconvenience. And your name on a list. I assume it's difficult to get a Top Secret clearance if you've posted a threat to kill the president, though I don't actually know. It just seems like something t
If they think the threat is credible they jail you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the elections? We are already pendulum-ing back the other way. It's what we do here. I really hope the Democrats win the POTUS next round while keeping the House but not gaining the Senate.
Both sides need to be perceived as winning often enough that we don't fall into a civil war. You don't want one party gaining and keeping a super majority for more then two years. Really not even the two years are acceptable but as long as it doesn't go beyond four.
In this day and age, we are so polarized that for one party to win to many times in a row will likely cause a civil war. That's bad for everyone regardless of your strip.
Hence, we aren't going to be the next Reich. That doesn't mean we won't nuke someone or they nuke us. Humanity will definitely nuke itself out of existence. It's not IF, but WHEN.
I think you guys should just shit or get off the pot, and have that damn civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
Yes. It was made. That's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It was made. That's a problem.
That's a small problem. The big problem is that people accept, even want it.
I had the same reaction (Score:3)
I've never seen a sentence fight so hard with itself for meaning.
Censorship and YRO (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say the same thing.
Re:Ummm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, since the EU Supreme Court just decided that the historic facts Islam is based on is "hate speech" there is no need for anyone to sign this agreement.
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, since the EU Supreme Court just decided that the historic facts Islam is based on is "hate speech"
Their ruling is based on the principle that if people get offended and react violently, then it is hate speech.
NOT hate speech: Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old girl. -- This is a widely accepted historical fact.
NOT hate speech: Men who have sex with 9 year old girls are pedophiles. -- This is a noncontroversial fact.
HATE SPEECH: Mohammad was a pedophile. -- This is a logical syllogism of the previous two facts, but is hate speech because people got offended.
NOT hate speech: Jesus was a pedophile. -- This is ok, because Christians don't get offended easily.
NOT hate speech: Joseph Smith was a pedophile. -- Also ok, because Mormons don't riot.
NOT hate speech: Buddha was a pedophile. -- Buddhists don't riot either.
So in Europe, if you want your right to not be offended enforced by the courts, you need to be willing to get violent, vandalize cars, and burn some shops. Some bombings will bring you even more respect.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty horrifying way of framing the issue. But you're probably correct on the message it sent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NOT hate speech: Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old girl. -- This is a widely accepted historical fact.
No.
Pretty sure the "fact" just is that the dude married a 9 year old.
Marriage back then meant something entirely different.
Re: (Score:3)
NOT hate speech: Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old girl. -- This is a widely accepted historical fact.
No. Pretty sure the "fact" just is that the dude married a 9 year old. Marriage back then meant something entirely different.
He married her when she was six. They consummated the marriage when she was 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I don't know much about Buddhism
You may be technically correct, but on any given day pull up your favorite three international news sources and go over them for mentions of terrorism. You will probably notice that one faith conducts a preponderance of those activities. I bet it's not Buddhism.
Re: (Score:2)
aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship"
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
You mean besides how you stop both hate speech and online censorship?
The internet should not be regulated? I agree that it shouldn't. If you are offended by something, then don't view it.
Fighting online attacks sounds great, but I don't' see how that's even a possibility. Hell, the US can't seem to stop this, I'm not sure how this could be done without a hell of a lot more oversight, to the point of neutering the internet as we know it.
There's no such thing as hate speech? Granted, there are hateful thing
Re: (Score:2)
Reading over you comment, do you have a distrust in the public? You want censorship to not be a thing, yet you do not want to trust the public with making that decision for themselves. What if the vast majority of the public wants hateful things gone? Additionally, if the vast majority want it gone, then who is indeed in power here? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are hitting on an existential problem with your own argument here.
It's a nebulous term and the thought of laws for such a thing being defined by who's in power is scary as hell.
The reason it is scary is because you aren't the one in power. If you
Re: (Score:2)
By the end of your comment you get what I'm saying but you still miss the point. Perhaps I'm being obtuse. Especially if you think I was ever equating free speech with slavery. Let me make it a bit more generic and to the point here.
I support (insert issue) because I feel (insert feeling) about (issue we are talking about). The problem with the statement isn't that you have based it on (inserted feeling), the problem with the statement is all the "I" that's in it. You said you don't trust the public an
Re: (Score:2)
Parent post is hate speech and must be removed.
I don't (Score:2, Troll)
If you want to have a conversation about something but you can't do it without threats of violence then be prepared to give up the rest of the trappings of civilized society. Sometimes that's necessary (like a revolution) but most of the time it's just political violence and terrorism.
Re: I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Hate speech, e.g. outright calls for violence, is and should be illegal in all civilized societies. Making threats, including thinly veiled ones, illegal isn't so much censorship as preserving public order.
This is clearly the far-left strategy:
1. Pretend to be against violence.
2. Ban violence.
3. Claim that speech you don't like is violence.
4. Ban any speech you don't like.
5. Beat the living fuck out of anyone saying things you don't like (after all, it's just self defense).
It should really have been obvious all along, but it wasn't until they rolled out the concept of "microagression" that people really started to clue in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To fight hate speech and online censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't you see? It's not censorship when they censor things they don't like.
Re: To fight hate speech and online censorship? (Score:2)
Hard to take a bite out of crime without a 2th.
Oh, fuck off with your bullshit "Hate Speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Speech is NOT an emotion. There is no such thing as "hate speech"
Either you have free speech or you don't.
Trying to label "some" speech as hate speech is nothing more then censorship. PERIOD.
--
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh at "taboo" subjects.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the children? And adult people we want to treat like they're children?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the USA, 'Liberal' has a new meaning. It used to mean 'in favor of liberty', not for decades now.
Re: (Score:2)
'Progressives' that are actually reactionaries that want to return to the politics of 1930!
Bullshit is everywhere.
Can't wait to read this (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're going to fight "hate speech" and at the same time fight "online censorship"? Oh, this should be good....
hate speech (Score:2, Informative)
Who decides what is hate speech?????
Re: (Score:2)
Those that hate free speech
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides what is hate speech?????
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Censoring Internet to prevent online censorship? (Score:3)
And they're going to do this by censoring the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Create the wrong kind of funny political video and all big brand social media gets a report on that EU user?
banning hate speech / online censorship is an 1st (Score:2)
banning hate speech / online censorship is an 1st amendment issue.
And it's way to easy for political ads to fall under hate speech that would rocket the case up to the us supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
banning hate speech / online censorship is an 1st amendment issue.
And it's way to easy for political ads to fall under hate speech that would rocket the case up to the us supreme court.
It's the entire reason for the 1st since the only speech that needs protecting is unpopular speech, in this case "hate speech".
The words "hate speech" are like the words "inner beauty", they can mean anything so they mean nothing.
Tim Berners Lee (Score:2)
https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_... [ted.com]
Thanks Trump (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankfully Trump's distrust and dislike of them will block this from taking hold in the US. This is a classic example of a power grab "for the greater good" by nation's that do not believe in the freedom of speech.
To censor hate speech, they will need to put people in charge of what is hate speech, which naturally they will define to increase their power. And to enable those people to take action, they'll have to have a controlling stake of key parts of the internet.
As for calling out China for not people a part of this, why the hell would they care? They already enforce such behaviors in their nation to great effect. I can only wonder if this request was modeled after such a disgusting setup.
goes back to education (Score:2)
It all goes back to education, when a person with a well rounded education (including liberal arts/history...) sees bad information it is like seeing red blinking text in a WEB Page.
Since education quality and funding has been reduced to bare bones in the US and with some countries worse off, you get many people believing every sensational/outrageous thing on the net. How about giving people a good education now. Eventually even the teachers will be no-educated at the rate we are going.
Re: (Score:2)
It all goes back to education, when a person with a well rounded education (including liberal arts/history...) sees bad information it is like seeing red blinking text in a WEB Page.
Since education quality and funding has been reduced to bare bones in the US and with some countries worse off, you get many people believing every sensational/outrageous thing on the net. How about giving people a good education now. Eventually even the teachers will be no-educated at the rate we are going.
What they hell are you talking about? We spend over 600% more on education today than we did in the 80's. Tuition to 4 years is up something like 800% in the same time period. WTF are you smoking with this "bare bones" bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
He also appears unaware of the state of ed schools. His 'eventually' happened 40 years ago. The very bottom of the student barrel goes to ed, where they get average GPAs near 4.0.
Re: (Score:2)
NO NO NO (Score:2)
Nice thought, but... (Score:2)
Honestly, the incels and Nazis have had decades to prove that legally forbidding hate speech is not sufficient deterrent anyway. They just don't fear it enough.
Fear of ostracism for their beliefs, now that puts enough fear in them to drive them under. Give legal protection to the unmask-and-ostracize folks if you really want to stop all this.
failure at the start (Score:3)
The problem with "hate speech" and all the other SJW stuff is that they use flexible definitions of their subject. What exactly "hate speech" means, can easily change and already changed multiple times since the term "hate speech" was invented.
Unfortunately, this does a massive damage to the cases where it actually happens. This is even more clear with "rape". Nowadays, anything from a brutal gangrape with violent penetration into multiple orifices to accidentally touching someones breast is called "rape". There have even been a few cases where pure thought has been labeled with that term. It does nothing but disservice to actual rape victims, who cannot use a clearly understood term anymore to communicate a clear matter without going into details. These days, if you are a victim, you have to describe that penetration was involved or people will think you're just a snowflake who thinks a stupid joke is the same as physical violence.
We will see the same development with "hate speech" as soon as it becomes actionable. Everything even slightly objectable will get the label, until it becomes meaningless.
One step at a time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Hillary would have been champing at the bit to sign on to this ridiculous accord. Trump is not. So... We lucked out?
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily the internet is constructed in a way that makes effective regulation of communication nearly impossible.
Except it's not. When you piss off the establishment they pull your domain records, have your host shut down your VMs and ban you from the financial system.
Re: (Score:2)
Private businesses are under no obligation
Many are, actually. Those that have common carrier status don't get to make arbitrary decisions about whom they will and won't serve, their "values" not withstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Will social media side with the EU government on a funny cartoon about a faith/cult?
Allow a faith to report and remove a site they report as spreading apostate content?
Content that allows a person in the EU to change their faith?
Re: IMPERSONATING me AGAIN? apk (Score:2)
I don't even know which of these APKs (if any) is real any more. It's quite possible that Pete died years ago and now it's just a bunch of ACs pretending to be him and arguing with each other. How could anyone really tell the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech.
No EU government "laws" on political and faith related content to worry about in the USA.
In the USA you have the freedom to publish without the government wanting to review political and faith related content.
As the EU removes cartoons, memes, art work, comedy, political content, music, lyrics, books the USA can welcome arti
Re:Totalitarians (Score:5, Informative)
Macron is the pro-corporate former banker turned pro-elite politician. How you managed to spin that into "socialism" is anyone's guess, especially considering that his country actually has a socialist party, and he ran against them and won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]