Facebook, X, YouTube to do more against online hate speech, EU says | Hacker News Reader

Facebook, X, YouTube to do more against online hate speech, EU says

reuters.com

11 pointsthm11 comments

This is going to be another one of those threads where Americans are angry and confused at a non-American government not governing according to American values, isn't it?

I think the problem stems from the

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

statement in the American Deceleration of Independence, so they believe that all humans deserve at minimum the same amount of freedoms they have including the enumerated and unenumerated rights in their United States Constitution.

Of course this is not in parity with other governments, of which at least in Democracies or by similar processes are by the consent of the governed.

This is great, hate speech is all the opinions I don't like, right?

That's actually pretty well defined.

Public incitement to: Violence against groups/individuals, Hatred based on protected characteristics, Discrimination

Protected characteristics include: Race, Color, Religion, Descent, National/ethnic origin, Sexual orientation, Gender identity, Disability

Specific prohibited conduct: Publicly condoning/denying genocide, Publicly condoning/denying crimes against humanity , Public distribution of materials promoting hate, Using hate speech online/digital platforms

Can you please detail here why EU should be more lax on the points stated above?

because I've ran a team overseeing the moderation for 200k players in an online game, and the real issue is the application, not the word, of the law/rules.

You can copy, paste, write and say any number of smart words, but the real world is very messy. You quickly get something that is on the line, or that you misjudge because of your own biases.

I think that a minimal pair would be of interest

> Publicly condoning/denying genocide

Saying "X genocide did not happen" clearly falls under the rule.

But I wonder if saying "I think that X genocide did not happen", which is statement of opinion, would be considered by censors/moderators to be hate speech.

I recently reported a comment on a Meta website that said something along the lines of “[x] CEO needs a Luigi”. It was clearly advocating for a copycat murder of a specific individual. I got a response back saying that it didn’t break any Meta rules. I hit the button to request a re-review. Again, I was told that a person took a second, closer look at it and confirmed that it didn’t break any Meta rules.

If calling for copycat murders is something that Meta explicitly allows on their platform, then I think the EU are right to push them to do better.

One should prefer that they don't.

Hate speech, as we saw with the insane fire-storm over Sriram Krishnan's appointment, and the deep-seated hated with Hindus/Indians in the US, is actually a great breaker of the elite-controlled illusions.

The faster these break, the better.

Without technical alternatives EU treats are worthless

TBH, with or without technical alternative the EU food is pretty nice.

How much of this is about defending Israel from criticism of their genocide and how much of this is real? The platforms are full of hate speech, but they also don't actually care. Twitter in particular was engineeered in the past few years specifically to allow more hate speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com