The Zucc was asked by Congress about what he thought about “hate speech” and how Facebook intends to deal with the issue. This was his response:
It’s essentially a non-answer.
And, well… Zucc wasn’t under oath, so who knows what’s true?
Zucc says the Artificial Intelligence will block “hate speech”... but doesn’t define “hate speech”
You can hear in the short clip, he mentions that AI will become responsible for policing hate speech content, but when pressed to elaborate on how Facebook defines “hate speech” by giving an example of open debate about abortion, he responds with
“... that wouldn’t fit the definitions of what we have.”
What wouldn’t? What wouldn’t fit the definition of what???
He never actually defines the term in the context of Facebook policy, and that’s because there isn’t one.
What’s the problem?
Most people are disgusted with the notion of hate speech.
When I see people saying racist or bigoted things online, there’s a visceral response in me, mentally and physically. I’m repulsed by racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
But I also recognize that my own personal revulsion has little to do with the experience of others and their freedom to disseminate information. And I also recognize that bigotry should be free to roam in the light of day so societies can easily spot it. Similar to a census: it allows us to take stock on our own culture and make more informed decisions about how our practices should evolve.
When the definition is relative…
Recently, the Trump-loving duo, Diamond and Silk, were banned from Facebook.
Sisters Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, whom President Donald Trump has praised, said Facebook told them their content was "unsafe to the community" and that the company limited the spread of their posts.
Zuckerberg says labeling Diamond and Silk unsafe was 'enforcement error'
The official statement on this is that it was a “mistake”:
Zuckerberg said Facebook has gotten in touch with the duo to reverse the decision.
Further echoed by Facebook spokeswoman Sarah Pollack:
We have communicated directly with Diamond And Silk about this issue. The message they received last week was inaccurate and not reflective of the way we communicate with our community and the people who run Pages on our platform. We have provided them with more information about our policies and the tools that are applicable to their Page and look forward to the opportunity to speak with them.
Diamond And Silk: No, Facebook Hasn’t Contacted Us
Yet when Coglianese asked the two sisters about their page, they said, “We have not heard from Facebook, they have not communicated with us. We haven’t talked to them by phone. We haven’t heard from Facebook.”
When Coglianese pressed back, they called Facebook’s statement to WaPo inaccurate.
A spokesman for the company also told The Daily Caller News Foundation that it had “communicated directly” with Diamond and Silk.
The danger with this whole thing is this: when you allow platforms to police speech based on completely relative and fluid definitions, you end up with some pretty terrible abuse as platforms redefine what the terms mean in order to censor content they simply disagree with.
When comic Marcia Belsky sarcastically replied “men are scum” to a friend’s Facebook post back in October, she never anticipated being banned from the platform for 30 days.
That was exactly what happened.
Belsky was shocked at the severity of the punishment considering her relatively innocuous comment, and immediately spoke to her fellow female friends about the ordeal. They could relate.
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, countless women have taken to Facebook to express their frustration and disappointment with men and have been promptly shut down or silenced, banned from the platform for periods ranging from one to seven days.
Women have posted things as bland as “men ain’t shit,” “all men are ugly,” and even “all men are allegedly ugly” and had their posts removed. They’ve been locked out of their accounts for suggesting that, since “all men are ugly,” country music star Blake Shelton “winning the sexiest man isn’t a triumph.”
Facebook Is Banning Women for Calling Men ‘Scum’
This is treading some dangerous territory.
When it truly goes too far
There is a YouTuber who goes by Count Dankula (you can find his channel here)
He was recently convicted of the crime of being “grossly offensive”, and is currently awaiting sentencing. He could face prison time for making an offensive video.
Scottish YouTuber Mark Meechan, known as Count Dankula, was convicted on Tuesday for posting a “grossly offensive” video of his girlfriend’s pug doing a Nazi salute.
“I think it’s a very, very dark day in regards to freedom of speech and freedom of expression,” said Meechan, 29, according to Yahoo News U.K. He also warned British comedians against making jokes “because your context and intent behind them apparently don’t matter anymore.”
Meechan posted the video titled “M8 yer dugs a Nazi” in April 2016 and was arrested last year. He now faces jail time under the Communications Act 2003, according to Yahoo News.
YouTuber Count Dankula found guilty of hate speech for ‘Nazi salute’ pug video
You can see the pug doing the salute in the picture above.
The status of the video on YouTube is tenuous at the moment, but I was able to find it in restricted status here. I recommend watching it.
In the video you can clearly see him setting up the context for what you are about to see. He explicitly describes that he is going to teach his girlfriend’s pug to be “the least cute cute thing I [can] think of, which is a Nazi.” because he is annoyed with how cute she thinks the dog is and he’s trying to annoy her back.
It's a joke.
I personally find the “gas the jews” stuff to be pretty distasteful… for some reason I think the salute is funny. I don’t know why, but that’s just me.
But this has been deemed a crime in the UK. The video has been found “grossly offensive”, and this guy is potentially facing prison time.
This is the mark of an authoritarian state, punishing its own citizens for thoughtcrime:
A thoughtcrime is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, first published in 1949, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink (or wrongthink) in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party. Crimestop is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.
This could easily be you next
Have you ever voiced an opinion that was edgy, counterculture, offensive to a particular group of people?
I know I have.
I’m a proponent of peaceful parenting, which means that I find spanking to be harmful to children and morally wrong. In expressing my opinions about peaceful parenting, I have deeply offended many people because my opinion is a minority in my country:
In 2014, according to a nationally representative survey, 76 percent of men, and 65 percent of women, 18 to 65 years old, agreed that a child sometimes needs a “good hard spanking.” This proportion has declined modestly since 1986 among women, while approval among males, after declining into the early 1990s, has remained steady.
How easy would it be for a social media platform to outlaw such an opinion because it is “grossly offensive” to most people? What if my opinions about spanking violate your safe space? What if the state ends up agreeing with social media platforms, as the UK agreed with YouTube about the crime of making an obnoxious video about annoying your girlfriend?
They could call peaceful parenting "hate speech", and that would be the end of it -- I'd be arrested on the spot.
This is a paradigm-shifting moment in history, and I, for one, am on the side of freedom of speech.
I believe all speech should be heard, and that everyone has the right to express any opinion they like, no matter how offensive it might be to other people.
After all, you wouldn't want to have your favorite ideological or political position suddenly become "hate speech" because it "grossly offended" people, and have the State throw the full force of the law at you -- would you?
What do you think?
Do you find this trend in censorious behavior by massive corporations like Facebook and first-world governments like the UK to be troubling?
Are you ok with it?
Let me know in the comments.
