Should Tech Giants Police “Hate Speech” Online? - Comments Page 2

You edit what appears in the comments on your site. How is that different from social media sites doing the same thing?

EDITOR'S NOTE: It's different because no heavy-handed government or "civil society organisation" is telling me what I can or cannot publish.

I disagree with you on this one. If my name is associated with a site, either because I own it or sponsor it, I am very concerned about my image. I would not want my name or reputation associated with some of the vile comments that are posted online sites. If I owned the site, I would not allow people to post any comments. Most are inane and add nothing to the discussion. Now, Look at Bob Rankin's site. He edits and censors comments. Why? Because he doesn't want his site hijacked by flame wars, spam, or political commentary. He wants to keep the discussion on track and on his terms. His site - his rules. You want to say what ever you wish? Buy an add or start your own site.

This is but one reason why a lot of Brits will be voting to leave the EU (whether enough or not can't be forecast at the moment).

Other point is how are the "responsible" companies going to be able to check content (of private conversations) when things like Signal are coming? As far as I can see they are not limiting the responsibility to only public sites, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

I've no connection with Signal by the way.

Some here may be interested in an article that discusses what "hate speech" means and what Twitter is actually doing about it:
https://m.mic.com/articles/144228/echoes-exposed-the-secret-symbol-neo-nazis-use-to-target-jews-online#.6gwiyhXz1
We're not talking about the freedom to say "you're an idiot" to somebody you don't like (rude and pointless as that may be) but about the kind of thing that is at *best* meant to intimidate a targeted person into silence and at worst is a warning that serious physical harm will follow.
The article doesn't go into the issue of terrorism per se, but it's hard for me to see deliberate incitements to followers to harm people for racial, ethnic or religious differences as anything else -- whether it's by ISIS or Al Qaeda or something as American as fans of the KKK. Quite apart from the Terms of Service question, there are laws about threats and incitement of violence in the US as well as the EU.

[IMHO]What is urgently needed is a "Digital Bill of Rights"
In the interim, I would like to refer you to the following:
"During a speech for the launch event of their new Jini technology on 25 January 1999, Sun Microsystems' CEO Scott McNealy addressed a group of reporters/analysts and stated that consumer privacy issues are a "…red herring." Adding that "You have zero privacy anyway," and "Get over it."
Sadly, McNealy's comments came only hours after competitor Intel reversed course under pressure and disabled identification features in its forthcoming Pentium III chip."

Posted by:

Dwight Simmons
09 Jun 2016
I disagree with you on this one. If my name is associated with a site, either because I own it or sponsor it, I am very concerned about my image. I would not want my name or reputation associated with some of the vile comments that are posted online sites. If I owned the site, I would not allow people to post any comments. Most are inane and add nothing to the discussion. Now, Look at Bob Rankin's site. He edits and censors comments. Why? Because he doesn't want his site hijacked by flame wars, spam, or political commentary. He wants to keep the discussion on track and on his terms. His site - his rules. You want to say what ever you wish? Buy an add or start your own site.

Posted by:

Jim
08 Jun 2016
Rules like these are part of every organization on the Internet that allows you to post on their site. And despite waving the First Amendment around like a Salvation Army banner the bare bones is that this has no more to do with the First Amendment than the flapping of seagull wings has to do with the rise of ocean tides. Cherry picking a sentence or a few words out of context from the First Amendment and claiming that y'all got yer free speech is downright silly.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law (by Congress) respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting ...
But 'Free Speech does not come with the freedom of consequences to what was spoken. I may personally dislike Klingons. I may even hate Klingons. But I certainly cannot post to Facebook that this weekend I am arranging for a gang of my fellow Klingon haters to to meet outside their social club and beat them all with bats as the come out of it.
You don't own your Facebook page. Facebook owns it. They let you use it to post stuff on. Their page. Their rules. (See code of conduct.) Even Bob here has rules:
YES... spelling, punctuation, grammar and proper use of UPPER/lower case are important! And please limit your remarks to 3-4 paragraphs. If you want to see your comment posted, pay attention to these items.
All comments are previewed, and may be edited before posting.
These rules are infringing upon so-called free speech? If I don't follow these rules my speech may not be seen on Bob's comment section.

Both of these posters make valid points that I agree with.

Feeble minded people like that man who killed 50 gays and maimed an other 50 in that Orlando club are probably under the influence of "free speech" from internet.
It is smart "free speech" propagande that feed the ranks of terrorism. Though I wholly believe in freedom, I also believe that, within reason, a raisonnable control of "free speech" is required in view of the average intellectual level of our world population. Counter propaganda is probably a better weapon than technological warfare. Wake up, Idealistic thinking leads nowhere, ask the middle-age Russians !