Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content

a reply to: JinMI

Love your post JinMI.

I guess what people will have to do at this point is counter YouTube and FB with with a few Lawsuits and, including, Human Rights violations regarding Freedom of information and Free Speech.

The Corporate Companies are using psychological warfare by controlling the population like cattle in their attempts to divert the attention away from what they're actually trying to accomplish by doing this.

Doing such only leaves room for abuse in other areas of Society. My question is, why do these Companies do this? The Constitution is upholding Giant billion dollar Corporations while infringing going upon everyone else's in Society.

originally posted by: Echo007
Youtube already censors some users comments.

View Youtube comments while not logged in, compare it to comments you see while logged in. I have seen my own comments made on a youtube video not show up when logged out, only shows when logged in.

I was watching the Milo pizzagate talk in Ohio for a minute. The viewer count was 6 but the chat was on fire. Milo got censored too - not that I'm his biggest fan or anything, but censorship around this is like nothing I've seen in my lifetime and I am near 50.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: JinMI

I'm never a fan of censorship, but at the same time, when they are private (non-government) companies taking it upon themselves to police their own sites the way that they deem fit, I can't really find fault with that.

Thing is, it seems that the pressure is coming from the government, as per the quote from OP's threadstarting comment:
"...but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks."

So this seems to be an attack on freedom on speech when the government threatens the platforms of the message.

a reply to: thegeneraldisarray

Still, it's up to the company if they want to fold under such pressure.

Yes, I understand that we live under a crony-capitalist system at the moment, and that there would probably be negative consequences if they refused, but they still have that chance to refuse.

Wouldn't you rather live in a society where companies fold under pressure to censor things rather than a central government deciding that it's time to pass laws and further tighten its stranglehold on the freedoms of its citizens and private companies?

Good, and this was a long time coming.

There's so much open racism, sexism, and fake news that hurts our society being shamelessly propagated under the guise of anonymity. I have no tolerance for hate speech and outright lying in a tolerant, free democracy.

a reply to: RedDragon

No tolerance for any opinions other than yours eh? Amirite!? Eh?

What's the betting it isn't Islamic extremism banned but so called right wing extremists, anti immigrant, anti refugee, open border types?

They'll be silenced while ISIS propaganda is welcomed with open arms.

a reply to: RedDragon

Who defines hate speech?

You need to grow up...fast.

originally posted by: Godabove09
a reply to: RedDragon

Who defines hate speech?

You need to grow up...fast.

I know hate speech when I see it and I don't like being called names. It's a kind of online bullying and I hope that the news address that too.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

When you put restrictions on types of speech, then speech becomes a privilege and not a right.

I'll reiterate my thought from a couple weeks ago on this topic. We could remove any need for censorship if anonymity were removed from the internet. 90% or more of the support for any activity would be removed if people had to actually sign their names to it.

For example, a poster here the other day said we need to start killing Muslims until they're all dead or have converted to other religions. That poster probably wouldn't say that if their real name were attached to their thoughts. More over, it wouldn't have gotten a bunch of stars if there were a public record of people signing up to agree with that sentiment.

I see it as there's basically two forms of combating this stuff. Hard censorship where it's physically removed/blocked. And soft censorship where you can only access it with a verified profile, while logged in. Of the two types I think the second would still preserve free speech while enforcing enough social pressure to ensure people for the most part behave.

a reply to: Aazadan

Censorship by any other name, smells just as foul.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

Censorship by any other name, smells just as foul.

Is encouraging people to sign their names to the beliefs they publish really censorship though?

a reply to: Aazadan

Here, just take this mark so we can verify your identity.

Only half kidding. I see where your coming from but where and how would you establish a method for proper verification and whom would be the caretakers of such information?

a reply to: JinMI

It's pretty easy to do really. Put a verify section on an account where data can be submitted and checked against already existing government databases. If it matches, verify the account. You can add a few other security features too if you want like pictures since most of us are in a facial recognition database already anyways.

It increases the potential impact of identity theft but that's a minor tradeoff.

Ultimately, it's even a pretty low burden on these companies, since most of it can be automated, and it doesn't require storing any extra personal information.

Honestly, these social network databases are so large, that 90% or more of people could already be verified just with information they've posted. The main difference being, there's no easy public way to link names to screen names, so people still say what they want without public scrutiny.

If the major websites really wanted to end extremism, this is how they could do it. Verify people and then make it easy to link people to what they've said. No censorship beyond social pressure is needed.

a reply to: Aazadan

What you are describing is in effect the exchange of liberty for security.

On one hand, sure, I think someone should have to stand by what they say. On the other, the hoops to jump through and giving away of personal information is not an idea I am comfortable with.

a reply to: JinMI

I could put up a counter argument to that. The Constitution applies to US citizens. Prove you're a citizen through proving your identity, and you've given a justifiable reason as to why your speech shouldn't be blocked for being offensive.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your confusing rights vs ideals. In this case, corporations and their users. However, as was in the op and as a poster mentioned, if there was a push for this censorship by the government would that not qualify as an infringement on the 1st?

Also, in the eyes of the US, you need not be a citizen to enjoy freedom of speech.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lastly, within the US our rights are not privilege to documentation. No need to show papers.

Youtube isn't free speech and never has been. If you want freedom, you have to host it yourself.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

Your confusing rights vs ideals. In this case, corporations and their users. However, as was in the op and as a poster mentioned, if there was a push for this censorship by the government would that not qualify as an infringement on the 1st?

Also, in the eyes of the US, you need not be a citizen to enjoy freedom of speech.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lastly, within the US our rights are not privilege to documentation. No need to show papers.

That's what you think. Try doing pretty much anything important without showing an ID.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

Your confusing rights vs ideals. In this case, corporations and their users. However, as was in the op and as a poster mentioned, if there was a push for this censorship by the government would that not qualify as an infringement on the 1st?

Also, in the eyes of the US, you need not be a citizen to enjoy freedom of speech.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lastly, within the US our rights are not privilege to documentation. No need to show papers.

That's what you think. Try doing pretty much anything important without showing an ID.