The European Commission has today announced a partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft in order to crack down on what it classes as “illegal hate speech” while “criminaliz[ing]” perpetrators and “promoting independent counter-narratives” that the European Union favours.
The move has been branded “Orwellian” by Members of the European Parliament, and digital freedom groups have already pulled out of any further discussions with the Commission, calling the new policy “lamentable”.
The commitments include “educat[ing] and rais[ing] awareness with their users” and building a “network” of “trusted reporters” to flag unwanted content. Facebook and Twitter are to provide “regular training to their staff on current societal developments” and work more closely with national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to remove content the EU does not favor.
Most alarmingly, however, the platforms have also promised to engage in the active promotion of views and organisations the EU does favour, and the re-education of supposedly hateful users.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/31/facebook-and-twitter-sign-up-to-eu-hate-speech-policy-promise-to-promote-counter-narratives/
(Title rewritten because "Error: field too long")
what is facebook?
Must suck to live with every European on everyone's rights.
>>47651
who cares
>>47651
It's only fair. Hateful people should live in fear. Is like that here in Brazil, with the nazi groups having to hide their hate for brown people. Works fine.
>>47680
spotted the nigger
[THIS POST IS UNAVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSORED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3648.]
>kikebart
Can we get some alternate links plz
>>47680
how exactly is it fair?
>>47707
how about you google it faggot, or maybe pull your head out of your ass as they link directly to the EU press release. If you're too mentally weak to try and filter out other people's biases I don't know why you're bothering to avail yourself of world affairs.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm
>>47701
>DUE TO THE HATEFUL shNxdlkDljfndg,;c
I was wondering where that shiny new meme came from.
>>47651
Fuck the EU.
>>47715
I already did look it up, I thought other anons might be interested. It would at least give a decent view of the situation from all sides without breitbarts typical conservative clickbait.
>>47701
OH GAWD DAMMIT
>>47701
THEY'RE CENC-this comment will not be shown due to hate speech-
>>47680
Fuck your bait. Dark times ahead.
>>47733
I'll take conservative clickbait over liberal clickbait any time of day.
>>47733
Fuck off.
Oh look it's the 3rd kikebart story about this in the /news/ catalog. Because they totally aren't clickbait merchants trying to capitalize on people's outrage, right?
>>47856
Can we put a link in the sticky for a place to upload articles to? That way no one has to support clickbait sites just to read an article.
>>47856
How about you fuck off back to tumblr and stop shitposting in a very important thread about continent wide repression of civil liberties?
>>47831
Because facts posted on one site aren't facts simply because they're posted on the site?
Lol get your confirmation bias and selective cherrypicking nigglet ass out of here
>>47858
How about you discuss the god damn article instead of whining over clickbait
>>47880
I'm pretty the same person posts "go back to tumblr" in every thread.
The guy was just saying that we shouldn't use clickbait sources, he never said it wasn't valid. If you don't see the obvious pandering they do, then you haven't read much of their catalog.
Sperg out more.
Error Code: 451. Freedom not found.
>>47680
I am a black American and I disagree with this. Speech should be allowed whether it's considered 'hate' speech are not. Once you control speech, you control thought and that never turns out well.
It's good to stop racism
>>47927
Until it affects you right?
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_of_conduct_en.pdf
>Freedom of expression is a core European value which must be preserved.
How does a blatant contradiction sit there unchecked.
>"offends, shocks or disturbs the State or any sector of the population"
>widening the geographical spread
>"trusted reporters"
>The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those
who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a
chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.
How can they have the audacity to accuse others of creating chilling effects on speech.
>>47926
lol its a nigger!!!
>>47940
Listen faggot, there's a difference between a nigger and a black man.
Niggers are punks, criminals, and should be killed.
Black men are just men with brown skin and a love of watermelon, though too many devolve into niggers.
>>47651
I love it. Both the right and the left are amazing at limited free speech. Just as the business right limited free speech in "semi-public" physical places that often act as the contemporary as the town square (shopping malls, etc.), the left will limit free speech in key digital places that act as the town square.
"Several members of an antiwar group had attempted to distribute leaflets on the mall of a large shopping center, calling on the public to attend a protest meeting. Center guards invoked a trespass law against them, and the Court held they could rightfully be excluded. The center had not dedicated its property to a public use, the Court said; rather, it invited the public in specifically to carry on business with those stores located in the center. Plaintiffs’ leafleting, not directed to any store or to the customers qua customers of any of the stores, was unrelated to any activity in the center. Unlike the situation in Logan Valley Plaza, there were reasonable alternatives by which plaintiffs could reach those who used the center. Thus, in the absence of a relationship between the purpose of the expressive activity and the business of the shopping center, the property rights of the center owner will overbalance the expressive rights to persons who would use their property for communicative purposes...Suburban malls may be the “new town squares” in the view of sociologists, but they are private property in the eye of the law."
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/54-quasi-public-places.html
Also, Breitbart is not a legitimate source.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code
>>47946
>difference between a nigger and a black man.
>difference between a turd and a piece of shit
>>47953
>attempt to make a tu quoque argument and even fail at that
nah, fuck off.
>>47959
The Guardian is objectively a better journalistic source than Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. If you're going to compare Breitbart to a British paper, it more closely resembles The Daily Mail or The Sun (without the naked ladies).
>>47999
didn't the guardian just pull a load of stories because the writer was making shit up?
Guardian has a better reputation mainly because its a lot older and wasn't created by a crackhead tinfoil hatter
>>47999
The Guardian failed miserably in the gamergate scandal, that alone is enough for me not to trust them.
>>48003
Which news sources are reliable then?
>Srs question
>>48003
God I wish I could post my Guardian screencaps of cupcake racism, Thomas the tank engine is Nazi propaganda and how white people don't know how to have black friends.
But the absolute worst is that story where the woman doesn't want her little girl to grow up because her poos will start smelling different.
The Guardian is the lowest of the low.
>>47997
Good response. You be really shown us how free speech isn't being pushed in on all sides. I'm convinced.
You should join a debate team. "I don't like your argument. Fuck off" is brilliant. You skip the steps of showing where the argument is wrong, offering a counter argument and offering evidence to support that argument. Why has no one else thought of streamlining their responses in the same way?
>>47997
Also learn the meaning of tu quoque before you attempt to use it.
No one attempted to invalidate an argument but instead the post said fuck free speech in digital and physical locations is under threat from multiple sides.
But I suppose this rattles your good vs evil, right vs wrong, black and white version of the world so much you need to lash out against anyone that doesn't simply parrot the exact same thing your saying or might challenge the idea that it isn't just liberals that are pushing in because of if conservatives have done it as well your simplistic understanding becomes complicated and scary. libs and dems enjoy limiting speech when it is their cause at the forefront. Look at Cameron who has done a great job of putting up s "voluntary" filter around the internet causing conservatives in Canada and the states to say "hey maybe we should and can do the same."
>>48000
Do you have a link for this?
Anyone else remember when the guardian won the Pulitzer for exposing the nsa?
Also, In 2007 the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency that analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, which was conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the University of Maryland.[172] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0.
Not to mention it beat NYTimes, Wall Street Journal and other respected papers for best online newspaper. And it's won best paper in uk a few time as well.
Just because a paper doesn't agree with your ideology doesn't mean it's a shitty paper. WSJ and NYTimes are both solid papers but I'd imagine most of news could cry if a ny times article was linked.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheGuardian
>>48000
That was the Daily Mail...
>>48027
You're correct; I glibly responded to what I had thought was an intentionally misleading post.
>>48031
>Also learn the meaning of tu quoque before you attempt to use it.
:^)
>free speech in digital and physical locations is under threat from multiple sides
You're right again; it's under attack from all sides, but your example doesn't seem to be one of them.
Your original post read like an attempt to diminish focus on the EU by spreading blame to a red herring: a ruling by a US court pertaining to speech on private property ("quasi-public spaces") where the court eventually decided that private property is--get this, it's crazy--private property.
That's why I referred to your example as a failed tu quoque: it looked as if you hadn't even succeeded with using a logical fallacy.
Had I wanted to use an example of abuse of power in the US relating to speech, I would have chosen something like the abuse of free speech zones. But free speech zones aren't a partisan issue either. :^)
However...
You're the first person in this itt to mention Liberal or Conservative; Republican or Democrat; the Right or the Left. The only place where this dichotomy is even mentioned in the article is in quotation and observation that political groups on all sides are opposed to this.
The OP is an article about the European Commission colluding with, and coercing, private business to enforce hate speech law (doesn't exist in the US) explicitly limiting expression vaguely defined by the EU; regularizing enforcement across Yurope; and censor critical opposition.
You even shitpost a complaint about the source, despite others being posted in the thread.
For all of the aforementioned reasons I had assumed, apparently in error, that you were attempting to turn the thread into shit-flinging about the left-right political dichotomy, and deflect criticism of the EU, rather than discuss the looming threat of totalitarianism to free expression.
Hence, "nah, fuck off." Clearly, my mistake.
>>48019
>woman doesn't want her little girl to grow up because her poos will start smelling different.
please have an archive link of this
>>48121
You know what anon, you're alright.
I think we both agree limiting of speech whether in the real world or the digital is worrisome.
I point to saying it's not about left or right because the most common arguments on /news/ are "liberals this" and "conservatives that" which usually miss the point.
>>48125
There are fundamental principles most of us can agree upon, and work to protect; but that fragile commonality is being lost in the current political climate, and opportunity to limit expression and trample civil liberties is ripe.
>>48123
I would post the screepcap for you right now if images weren't blocked on this image board.
>>48125
The ones calling for censorship of things they don't like are SJW. It is very much a left vs right issue.
>>48033
NYTimes has won a bunch of prizes too, but you can't ignore their clear bias in reporting. Breitbart isn't great, and they're more obvious about their bias, but at least they care to bring the incendiary facts without trying to diminish them with diction.
>>48231
>but at least they care to bring the incendiary facts without trying to diminish them with diction.
But that's exactly what they do. Comparing the NYT with breitbart is like comparing The Bank of America with those payday loan lenders in the pawn shop in the ghetto.
I mean, look at this shit:
>>46348
It doesn't get more biased than breitbart. People say Huffpost is their equvilant, but HuffPost doesn't have it's own twitter whores like Milo and (formerly) Ben Shapiro. Really only BuzzFeed comes close. Even Daily Kos doesn't pretend to be a news outlet like Breitbart does.
>>48232
I'm not saying Breitbait isn't biased. If you have a better alternative, I'd be glad to take it, but for the time being, it and the Mail are really the only ones that want to report on the 'other side'.
The Guardian has good pieces that confirm my beliefs too, though, like the piece on cop-on-civilian shootings under the racial lens.
>>47651
>partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft
it's fine then
guys chill down a moment. free speech does not exist in the european states. this is not new. the commission is just fucking around with facebook. that is irrelevant compared to having free speech limited by law in the member states beforhand anyway. this news simply does not matter. the kid fell down the well decades ago, not just yesterday
>>48270
I agree, except I'd go a step further and call OP's story out for being the standard variety of moral outrage clickbait which is breitbart's modus operandi most of the time. It's unfortunate that people here fall for marketing gimmicks like that here.
>>48271
Damn you EU shills sure hate Breitbart.
>>47651
The EU is disgusting.
>>48189
What's funny is that it used to be the right that wanted everything censored, at least in the US
>>48278
I agree, I'm from EU.
>>48293
It mostly still is the right. Those people aren't on twitter though so millennials don't care.
>>48278
"it is indeed a garbage continent"
sagte schon der große Ron Swanson
>>48189
Yes how the book burnings of yesterday and those hoping to ban Harry Potter came from the liberal left and not Christian conservatives. Not to mention that wacko liberal David Cameron who leads the conservatives pushed the liberal agenda in England when pushing to filter the British Internet. And those scary ag-gag laws came from the liberals as well.
Your understanding of even the most recent history is completely misguided. It is more than obvious that liberals, conservatives, businessmen and the like are all pushing to censor something that they disagree with.
>>48234
Not the anon you're responding to but most respected conservative news outlet is probably the Wall Street journal. I personally view it as on the same level as the NYTimes but with an obvious conservative bias.
Breit's equal is probably Gawker. Also breit has had to retract a fair amount of big stories. One of their biggest fuck ups being their friends of Hamas story where they cited a joke as a fact and their misrepresentation of acorn which got the conservative base riled up but also got them sued for being dishonest and misleading.
>>47927
Limiting free speech isn't stopping racism. Putting a damper on it, hiding it? Sure.
As >>47926 said, speech shouldn't be controlled. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, observations, and beliefs, no matter how wrong, uneducated, or upsetting they are- just like you should have the right to point out how wrong, uneducated, and/or upsetting their points are. Public discourse is the best way to common understanding and education, and when you limit discourse or heavily control it until it's one-sided, it's quasi-thought control.
Only a pussy fears negative speech, and only a coward fears the truth.
>>47651
Freedom is slavery 2bh.
>>48515
This is bait
>>48521
Are you, actually retarded?
>>48515
this
>breitbart
>>48666
>Retard detected
Was agreeing with the comment alluding to its source material. Cool your tits, satan.
>>48672
ily
>>47680
>here in Brazil
>Miami Vice Terminators for Cops
ya no
>>48188
i've seen them too. but these are not opinion pieces, they are news. guardian is definitely a good source for news, but a terrible one for opinion piece because of its libshit writers
>Microsoft
What services do they currently offer that allow for hate speech?
>>48672
You really need to read a book, you intellectual mollusc.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
>>48887
The guardian is a rag on the level of Buzzfeed.
>>48943
Black is white, wrong is right, true is false, etc.
Is this some low quality bait or what? I want the baitfags to leave.
>>47651
Well.....
Time for Civil War?
>>48959
Right, you are clearly just baiting for (you)s. Well done, you got me.
>>48991
I dread to give that rag a hit, but yes, that is the one.
