It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:45 pm


Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speech

Summaries and links to news items
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Benjamin Bice

  • Posts: 1122
  • Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speech

PostWed Apr 11, 2018 5:15 pm

Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Sasse’s Plea to Define Hate Speech; ‘This Is a Really Hard Question’

By Curtis Houck | April 10, 2018 7:08 PM EDT
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg grappled with questions of all stripes at Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the social media platform and the 2016 election, but it was Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse’s questions about hate speech that should alarm free speech advocates.

Along with inquiries from Texas Republican Ted Cruz, Sasse stood out. His portion began by acknowledging that companies like Facebook “have a hard challenge” when it comes to creating their own rules in addition to government regulations.



That being said, Sasse told him that he acknowledges yet worries about private groups like Zuckerberg being able to “make policies that maybe less than First Amendment-full spirit embracing” and “go from violent groups to hate speech in a hurry.”

Sasse then asked the key question:

You may decide or Facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech that I think America might be better off by not having policed by one company that has a really large and powerful platform. Can you define hate speech?

Despite the fact that Zuckerberg repeatedly mentioned how he hopes social media companies like his will rely on Artificial Intelligence (AI) to clear out hate speech, he couldn’t define what hate speech is:

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I think that this is a really hard question and I think it’s one of the reasons we struggle with it. There are certain definitions that — that we — that we have around, you know, calling for violence or —

SASSE: Let's just agree on that.

ZUCKERBERG: — yeah.

Sasse stepped in to end this cringeworthy response, emphasizing that “[i]f somebody’s calling for violence, we — that shouldn’t be there” but what he was trying to ask him about concerned “the psychological categories around speech.”

The Nebraska Republican continued to hammer home this danger about how scores of younger Americans are embracing the erosion of the First Amendment and censoring pro-lifers:

You use language of safety and protection earlier. We see this happening on college campuses all across the county. It's dangerous. 40 percent of Americans under age 35 tell pollsters they think the First Amendment is dangerous because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else’s feelings. Guess what? There are some really passionately held views about the abortion issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion views on content — on your platform?

Zuckerberg shot back that “I certainly would not want that to be the case” but Sasse countered: “But it might be really unsettling to people who have had an abortion to have an open debate about that? Wouldn’t it?”

“It might be, but I don't think that...would fit any of the definition of what we have, but I do generally agree with the point that you're making which is as we're able to technologically shift towards especially having AI proactively look at content, I think that's going to create massive questions for society,” he in part responded.

Sasse concluded by reiterating that it’s clear that violence plus human and sex trafficking “have no place on your platform, but vigorous debates, adults need to engage in vigorous debates.”

To see the relevant transcript from April 10's Joint Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committee Hearings, click “expand.”

Joint Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committee Hearings
April 10, 2018
5:03 p.m. Eastern
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy
Offline

Jim Mathias

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speec

PostThu Apr 12, 2018 12:56 am

He couldn't define 'hate speech' ---or he wouldn't. Does it matter? When a Jew runs an opinion-forming mass media tool, it will be run in a manner that is "what is best for Jews." He'll have his AI machines define 'hate speech' in accord with the overall aim of his kind in mind, which is to say the genocide of Whites who will not become/remain their slaves.
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 1857
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speec

PostThu Apr 26, 2018 12:03 pm

Jim Mathias wrote:He couldn't define 'hate speech' ---or he wouldn't. Does it matter? When a Jew runs an opinion-forming mass media tool, it will be run in a manner that is "what is best for Jews." He'll have his AI machines define 'hate speech' in accord with the overall aim of his kind in mind, which is to say the genocide of Whites who will not become/remain their slaves.

Facebookers simply need to add what Miss Monika calls "context" to what Big Facebook Jew Zuckerberg can't define: 'hate speech'. :lol: That's a good one.
---

For the first time, Facebook clearly tells its users what’s allowed
Social network not saying why it took 14 years to release this document.
CYRUS FARIVAR
4/24/2018

[...]
"Over the coming year, we are going to build out the ability for people to appeal our decisions," Monika Bickert, vice president of global policy management, wrote in a blog post. "As a first step, we are launching appeals for posts that were removed for nudity / sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-allowed/

************


Update, yesterday:

Community doesn't want us deciding what
news is true and false, says Facebook VP

Ingrid Angulo
10:53 AM ET Wed, 25 April 2018

Facebook is working to stop bad content from showing up, but the company's head of global policy said it helps if users provide context to anything that might be considered offensive.

"That's why we say if you're using, for instance, an ethnic slur to say 'we shouldn't be using this word' or 'this is something I heard somebody call someone today and thought it was terrible,' make that clear in your post and we'll leave it on the site," Monika Bickert, Facebook's head of global policy management, said on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street."

Image
Facebook 'hate speech' expert Monika Bickert

"It's often a challenge and that's because we don't always have the context to know why somebody is posting something," Bickert said.

Users have complained about their posts being viewed as hate speech — and thus removed — when the goal was educational rather than harassment. Facebook's team of content reviewers adheres to rigid standards, but there is always room for human error and a post with unclear intentions may be unfairly taken down, Bickert said.

Facebook recently made its Community Standards public, outlining the types of posts that can get users banned. The site will allow users to appeal if they believe that their post was wrongfully taken down. If another reviewer finds that the content was originally misinterpreted, it will reappear on the site.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/faceboo ... clear.html
Offline

Benjamin Bice

  • Posts: 1122
  • Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speec

PostThu Apr 26, 2018 5:36 pm

Will Williams wrote:
Jim Mathias wrote:He couldn't define 'hate speech' ---or he wouldn't. Does it matter? When a Jew runs an opinion-forming mass media tool, it will be run in a manner that is "what is best for Jews." He'll have his AI machines define 'hate speech' in accord with the overall aim of his kind in mind, which is to say the genocide of Whites who will not become/remain their slaves.

Facebookers simply need to add what Miss Monika calls "context" to what Big Facebook Jew Zuckerberg can't define: 'hate speech'. :lol: That's a good one.
---

For the first time, Facebook clearly tells its users what’s allowed
Social network not saying why it took 14 years to release this document.
CYRUS FARIVAR
4/24/2018

[...]
"Over the coming year, we are going to build out the ability for people to appeal our decisions," Monika Bickert, vice president of global policy management, wrote in a blog post. "As a first step, we are launching appeals for posts that were removed for nudity / sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-allowed/

************


Update, yesterday:

Community doesn't want us deciding what
news is true and false, says Facebook VP

Ingrid Angulo
10:53 AM ET Wed, 25 April 2018

Facebook is working to stop bad content from showing up, but the company's head of global policy said it helps if users provide context to anything that might be considered offensive.

"That's why we say if you're using, for instance, an ethnic slur to say 'we shouldn't be using this word' or 'this is something I heard somebody call someone today and thought it was terrible,' make that clear in your post and we'll leave it on the site," Monika Bickert, Facebook's head of global policy management, said on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street."

Image
Facebook 'hate speech' expert Monika Bickert

"It's often a challenge and that's because we don't always have the context to know why somebody is posting something," Bickert said.

Users have complained about their posts being viewed as hate speech — and thus removed — when the goal was educational rather than harassment. Facebook's team of content reviewers adheres to rigid standards, but there is always room for human error and a post with unclear intentions may be unfairly taken down, Bickert said.

Facebook recently made its Community Standards public, outlining the types of posts that can get users banned. The site will allow users to appeal if they believe that their post was wrongfully taken down. If another reviewer finds that the content was originally misinterpreted, it will reappear on the site.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/faceboo ... clear.html


My "context" will be that I am a White Racial Nationalist who advocates the National Alliance. Enough said!
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy
Offline

Jim Mathias

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speec

PostThu Apr 26, 2018 11:43 pm

Benjamin Bice wrote:


My "context" will be that I am a White Racial Nationalist who advocates the National Alliance. Enough said![/quote]

Then Jews like Zuckerberg with their powerful mass media loudspeakers like Fakebook will label you a "hater" by programming their AI machines to make it so and anything you say will be "hate speech." Their goyim sycophants (and other useful idiots) will parrot what they say, demonize you thereby, and inspire all kinds of "likes" and "tweets" that call for your torture, death or what have you. Psychobabblers might call this "projection" but I think it's just the manipulation of inferior minds to hate their own kind by a few clever Jews.

The National Alliance flyer titled "They Hate Us," nails it with respect to this topic. Spread it widely, there's a lot of truth in it.
Offline

Benjamin Bice

  • Posts: 1122
  • Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Plea to Define Hate Speec

PostSat Apr 28, 2018 12:00 am

Jim, I don't doubt you - but my point is that I do not fear them. A man who has nothing has got nothing to lose.
Professor of Anti-White Discrimination and Racial Hypocrisy

Return to News Items

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests