Moderating Hate Speech | Web Summit 2017 | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Moderating Hate Speech | Web Summit 2017

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

That should have a platform? The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian, European Digital Rights – EDRi's Joe McNamee, Net Structure's Renata Avila, EU Agency for Essential Rights' Friso Roscam Abbing & The New York Times' Jim Yardley. Organized at Discussion Forum, Web Summit.

Are all voices developed equal? From Facebook to Reddit, hateful rhetoric is discovered on every net platform. Do all of us have a right to claim whatever we desire online, or should platforms such as Facebook and twitter ensure that hate speech is not enabled to multiply?

Share Your Comments

82 comments

  1. Posted by Zachary Xavier, at Reply

    Hate speech going to end up becoming perfectly normally in this country under Trump, sadly. Even hate speech against the disabled.

    • Posted by Michael Robertson, at Reply

      like the hate crime charges that were dropped against those savage negroes who beat up that disabled white libtard? yeah we all know these ‘hate crime’ laws of any kind are one sided

    • Posted by Cool Koenisegg Agera RS, at Reply

      Zachary Xavier wow the young liberal snowflakes are triggered when spoken the truth to them.

    • Posted by Spaz: The Spastic Colonel, at Reply

      SupaDr00g I am so unbelievably triggered right now. How dare you. How can you even. I can’t even. Thanks for the lol!

  2. Posted by Genuine Swine, at Reply

    No speech should be moderated

    • Posted by P S, at Reply

      what if I sold smoothies, and they happened to be full of bleach, and sold you one and my marketing slogan was “delicious, safe smoothies! definitely NO bleach in them!”

      Should I be able to say that?

      What if I were your child’s grade school teacher, and I spent the day teaching them how to rape people, or how to kill people? Should I be able to say those things?

    • Posted by Michael Blake, at Reply

      P S just coz u don’t moderate speech doesn’t mean speech doesn’t have consequences .

    • Posted by Heartofserenity555, at Reply

      Michael Blake: I want free speech! Expect for those who oppose my own ideology!

      That is basically what he is saying in a nutshell.

  3. Posted by ASackFullofKittens, at Reply

    how about you moderate no speech, and instead go to work and take care of your family and leave everyone alone

    • Posted by MontySB, at Reply

      Do you really expect tyt and these guys to leave people alone

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      That’s impossible. Libs are like pesky gnats.

    • Posted by ASackFullofKittens, at Reply

      it’s a friendly recommendation

    • Posted by Kevin Pham, at Reply

      Listenbuddy1 that’s funny tell that to TRUMP’s tweets on TWITTER!

  4. Posted by Eddie Valencia, at Reply

    Video was just posted, is 34 minutes long and already 14 dislikes. You right wingers are such snowflakes, not to mention partisan hacks

    • Posted by Joes Corner, at Reply

      Eddie Valencia all videos are lived streamed first.

    • Posted by Gales99, at Reply

      Usual retards, nothing special tbh.

    • Posted by ReIentIess Storm, at Reply

      Eddie Valencia on yes because anyone who disagrees with you must be associated with a certain political group.

  5. Posted by Caroline Maybe, at Reply

    Wow. You lot say TYT are haters yet you are railing against A DISCUSSION forum. Irony much?!?

    • Posted by Kevin Pham, at Reply

      TheByzantineBeserker tell that to TRUMP and his tweets on TWITTER!

    • Posted by Caroline Maybe, at Reply

      TheByzantineBeserker it’s not TYTs forum!!!!!

    • Posted by Dannovick, at Reply

      And yet TYT took the position against censorship of hate speech, irony much?

    • Posted by Ace Cumen, at Reply

      Their ability to ignore what is actually in front of them is amazing. FORUM is not controlled by tyt, however TYT did argue against censorship even for hate speech..They will pretend to understand even while ignoring the information in the video they are commenting on!!!

    • Posted by letoIIAtryda, at Reply

      This forum spread hate speech

  6. Posted by Bigmouth stan, at Reply

    There’s no such thing as hate speech you Regressive Leftist morons.

    • Posted by Joes Corner, at Reply

      Bigmouth stan I hate people that order 50 cheasebugers in drive through all special

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      Vaness AntifaFan = drooling ‘tard 😜

  7. Posted by Ryan Swanson, at Reply

    Fantastic, lets end net neutrality *AND* deem opposing views as “hate speech” at the same time… what could go wrong?
    We’re quickly slipping into some dystopian wet dream. I no longer self-identify as a liberal due to a hijacking. Say what you want about the alt-right and/or conservatives but they at least understand the importance of free speech!

    • Posted by P S, at Reply

      Who is it that’s ending net neutrality though?

    • Posted by Ryan Swanson, at Reply

      *@P S*
      The FCC in my home country. I wish that it wasn’t true to be honest.

    • Posted by Bill, at Reply

      Ryan Swanson that’s not how the left defines hate speech though. SO I don’t get ur definition from

    • Posted by Bill, at Reply

      Ryan Swanson both cenk and shapiro said this qoute before even though none of them live by it “both sides are using the worst/most extreme view of both sides to represent the opposing groups as a whole while representing their own group with the best of themselves so no one will agree about anything”. Meaning no one is listening to what other side as a group is saying so u all are confusing each other. The left says regulate the guns but all the right hears is the left will take all the guns. The right says let’s regulate immigration properly but all the left hears is ban everybody. SO u all aren’t solving anything. Listen to the points made n stick to that and ignore the extremist from either party.

  8. Posted by Grim Locke, at Reply

    In exchange for preserving Aristocracy, “privileged” peoples become entitled to violent speech—if not violent acts—at the high cost of their continued personal impoverishment.

    Only collective equity and a more interdependent economics can heal our coarsening politics, lest the disparities in our societies expand into further despair, anguish and tragedy.

    But, people can’t self moderate; moderation is the authorized removal of content by a company’s employees.

    Instead of also going the route of suggesting self censorship, I think we can simply and ordinarily implore people to draft and revise what they post until they’re sure they won’t make a fool of themselves at best, and not committing a criminal assault and conspiracy with their sadboy antics.

    The Silver Bullet is Syndicalism.

    • Posted by Mike C, at Reply

      Adeon55 yeh because mike c is not anonymous enough so I had to fake it.
      You do know stupidity is not a virtue?

    • Posted by Grim Locke, at Reply

      Mike, what you’re talking about is the kind of stuff the Stasi would want.

      We don’t need to police speech as much as we need to claw back wealth, because money is not speech.

      If you want something to be mad about, be mad about Buckley v Valeo.

      But, what you’re asking for would be an acceleration of the practice of “Doxxing,” and the creation of an even more hostile world where anyone can hunt down anyone for what they say online.

    • Posted by Mike C, at Reply

      Grim Locke I wasn’t trying to promote it as a solution to hate speech but
      I would prefer it as an alternative to censorship.
      But you are correct, most humans are still very insecure and immature.
      This would almost certainly mean retaliations but I still would rather
      have character assassination then censorship.

      As for wealth disparity, I am on the same page but I doubt corporate shills
      Would increase taxation on top earners.
      America is so divided over many non issues, like the one in this video, that we
      will never address that most important to preventing our descent into feudalism.
      PS: I was not mad but I understand that the main issue is campaign financing.
      This is how representation becomes so far out of proportion, as to make our
      pathetic vote seem negligible.

    • Posted by Grim Locke, at Reply

      The panel Ana moderated above is already about how social media enables people to make criminally threatening speech that then goes unreported and uninvestigated, which hardly helps make speech something that people feel a free and equal participation before we even get to the billboards and advertisements that also seek to preclude, even more importantly, free thought.

      So, there’s a very real possibility of people getting murdered—really assassinated—by terrorists, like the Neonazis, the Klan, and other militant forms of white supremacy who take diversity and difference as a censoring of their privilege to live in an all white world.

      So, I absolutely want White Supremacists to at least censor themselves into White Identitarians, or just completely out of existence through the contemplation of class consciousness let alone an ordinary conscience.

      So, until we have a more collective and interdependent economy, it’s better that The Net be a reflection and not an absolute reproduction of reality, unless you like sad, mostly white and almost always men stalking and murdering people because somebody on the internet said something that upset these sadboys and besmirched their White “Pride.”

    • Posted by Mike C, at Reply

      While interesting, IDK how much someone spewing hate speech would have any conscience,
      Social or otherwise.
      We should also consider their incentives for spewing what would tend to be racially inflammatory
      hate speech.
      IMO this would probably be to inflame others.

      Maybe there isn’t any real solutions for this but to remain vigilant in condemnation of hate
      speech as we have.
      To show truth in the face of lies,
      To show love in the face of hate,
      To show understanding where there is ignorance,
      We must have faith and ignore our insecurities, having faith that the white identitarians
      will fail and social democracy will rein freedom down to bring
      about egalitarianism.
      Peace.

  9. Posted by MrTShbib, at Reply

    Hate speech=free speech

    • Posted by Joes Corner, at Reply

      MrTShbib I hate people that spend 5000$ on a set of rims for their car but forget the 25$ old change

  10. Posted by GonzoDuke, at Reply

    Be afraid be very afraid.

    • Posted by Cool Koenisegg Agera RS, at Reply

      GonzoDuke why be very afraid ?

    • Posted by Joes Corner, at Reply

      GonzoDuke i have the same motto about my exwife

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      Vaness AntifaFan = ‘tard

  11. Posted by The Moral Crusader, at Reply

    I love that libs who just a few years ago were yelling at private business owners to “BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT” are all now on the side of multi-billion dollar multinational corporations like FB and Twitter in discriminating against people who espouse unpopular political speech.

    • Posted by Storywalker4, at Reply

      The Moral Crusader *cough* it’s cause they’re not really libs *cough*

    • Posted by Bull Moose, at Reply

      The Moral Crusader remember gary ” you must bake the cake” johnson. I considered voting for him along time ago before I got on the trump train in early 2016

  12. Posted by The Moral Crusader, at Reply

    Just like the phone company can’t shut off your service because they don’t like your political opinions, FB and Twitter shouldn’t be able to either.

    • Posted by Captain XUltron, at Reply

      FB & Twitter Can Do What They Want On There Website

    • Posted by The Moral Crusader, at Reply

      +Captain XUltron False. The left has already set the precedent in regulating private businesses to prevent discrimination. De facto utilities like FB and Twitter should be regulated as such.

    • Posted by P S, at Reply

      de facto utilities? You sound like a communist.

    • Posted by Storywalker4, at Reply

      P S Do you oppose the phone company regulation then? And also, a communist would just have utilities, not de facto ones

    • Posted by P S, at Reply

      They can do a lot more than shut off your phone service – they can tap your conversations without your knowledge, and collaborate with the government to record them, if you are suspected of having political opinions that they don’t like – plotting a politically motivated terrorist attack for example.

      I’m all for phones, Facebook, Twitter and lots of other companies becoming public-private enterprises, complete with removal of profit motive, and radical improvement in worker’s conditions, compensation and well being via strong unions and legal protections.

      That said, this is not something I expected to be agreeing on with the far right.

  13. Posted by Jace and Cuzin ReLl takes over the Earth, at Reply

    The young Turks are turning me into a republican!!!!

    • Posted by Storywalker4, at Reply

      That’s sad actually, that authoritarians would make you illiberal. Because the republicans ain’t liberal either

    • Posted by luke pearson, at Reply

      Storywalker4 No they’re conservative. Also, water is wet

  14. Posted by The White Uncle Tom, at Reply

    *”Racism is not an opinion it’s a crime”* If that’s the case then the entire TYT staff should be locked up.

    • Posted by Storywalker4, at Reply

      Sexism is rape too I would assume, so where are they on the sex offender list?

  15. Posted by Anonymous Anime Icon, at Reply

    >”Racists” (aka anyone who disagrees with my left wing political opinions) should be locked up
    >We need to have a civilized Democratic debate
    Pick one

    • Posted by MrShelts93, at Reply

      Anonymous Anime Icon Nobody is arguing you should be locked up for holding racist opinions. Stop being so hysterical. Don’t be so triggered by people calling out racism.

    • Posted by Charlotte, at Reply

      So… you’re okay with hate speech?

    • Posted by Anonymous Anime Icon, at Reply

      +Charlotte So… you’re okay with censorship?

      not cool bro

    • Posted by MrShelts93, at Reply

      Anonymous Anime Icon Sorry to break it to you, but speech is already censored and rightfully so. We have libel laws, laws regarding threats and laws that protect privacy to name but a few. Freedom of speech is not the only freedom and sometimes it can threaten other forms (privacy for instance). It’s a democratic necessity that speech be censored in certain situations.

  16. Posted by Left Wing Watch, at Reply

    “Racist” is the new “heretic” for the modern age. The Young Turks are firmly on the side of big business and multinational corporations in censoring wrongthink.

    • Posted by Storywalker4, at Reply

      KelpyGVEVO “infidel, so blind the truth and spreading these filthy ideas” am I wrong?

    • Posted by Billy Badass, at Reply

      Destroy Capitalism and you won’t have to worry about global corporations censoring everyone. But I’m guessing you aren’t a fan of Socialism. So long as Capitalism exists, there will always be a group of elites trying to manipulate and take from you.

    • Posted by Anonymous, at Reply

      Nice trolling, LWW. Your misappropriation of a term from 1984 speaks to the possibility that you could actually be as dumb as you’re pretending to be.

    • Posted by Adeon55, at Reply

      PURGE THE HERETICS

  17. Posted by Jeremy G, at Reply

    Elitist bourgeoisie liberals will never learn

    • Posted by maya L, at Reply

      oh … they have learned and eventually they will win.

    • Posted by Billy Badass, at Reply

      Seize the memes of production

  18. Posted by ĸıʟʟ٦ ђ ī ϵ ƒ, at Reply

    Racism is a crime eh, sounds a bit off, but if that’s the case tell that to the people saying they hate white people and talking about “whiteness”.

    • Posted by Malphisto Cichol, at Reply

      +Blackatchaproduction
      I don’t think you properly read anything I wrote.
      At what point did I ever say that racism doesn’t have whites killing others because of their race?
      I will clue you in on something. I am a Dyn Hysbys. My people and culture, who were white, was practically driven to extinction by the Roman Empire and Christian Zealots.

      So I’ll ask again. At what point did I ever say that racism doesn’t have whites killing others because of their race?

      And no, I am stating a fact; racism is not a crime.
      Physical Violence and Murder, however, are crimes.
      All I did was draw the distinction between the two concepts because there are two entirely different concepts. You cannot criminalize an opinion. You cannot outlaw thoughts or beliefs. Not only does that open the door to a whole new world of authoritarianism which hurts EVERYONE on all sides, but its simply illogical and does nothing to resolve the problem of racism itself. Banning said speech won’t make it go away. It just makes it easier for people to ignore its existence so that they don’t have to confront it.

      Don’t be naive.

    • Posted by Blackatchaproduction, at Reply

      Malphisto Cichol het muted/reported as the spam you are marshmallow. Not buying it snowflake

    • Posted by Malphisto Cichol, at Reply

      +Blackatchaproduction
      I think we both know you didn’t mute or report me.
      I’m not sure why you’re so seemingly terrified of me that you need to come up with such immature excuses to run away from a discussion, especially when you and me are both actually on the same side. Your extremism is problematic, though. I would suggest dialing it back and learning self-restraint for the future.

    • Posted by Beamers Beamer, at Reply

      Who is talking about they hating white people?  However there are hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of white racist websites, forums, blogs, pages gamers, and channels dedicated to the degradation and intense hatred toward all black people including infants.

    • Posted by Malphisto Cichol, at Reply

      +Beamers Beamer
      And really, whatever “hate” is being cast on whites by others is only a reaction to the rampant racism that stems from these moronic White Nationalists/Supremacists. They try to make it seem equal when in reality its not. Hate only creates more Hate, and the onus for stopping said hatred falls on whites because we’re the ones who are historically most guilty of such. Even against our own. (Again, to cite the Roman Empire who were notorious for propagating this superiority mentality)

  19. Posted by Coos Oorlog, at Reply

    let me guess: all the downvotes are people who just read the headline and are butthurt triggered by the concept “hate speech”

    • Posted by Adeon55, at Reply

      Yes, there are five people. And as I said, it was made pretty clear that Ana Kasparian looked like the white supremacist Nazi of those five. Since I do not view this video in a vacuum, but in the context of everything I know about Ana’s ideology, there is only one conclusion I can come to. That this “civilized discussion” is an absurd farce of authoritarian leftism.

    • Posted by Coos Oorlog, at Reply

      you really do not seem to know much.

    • Posted by boggisthecat, at Reply

      Adeon55
      Ana isn’t remotely close to being a ‘leftist’, nor is she ‘authoritarian’. You should look up those terms, then seek out some real leftist opinion to enable you to recalibrate your understanding.

      FYI: Ana is centrist, Cenk is moderately to the right. In social justice terms, both are progressive, with Cenk being more wary and sceptical of arguments. This panel is fairly centrist, with the other woman being a moderate leftist (assessing what she said here).

      The left-right paradigm isn’t terribly useful, but you should at least try to understand it.

    • Posted by J Crb8, at Reply

      Your comment is hate speech

    • Posted by Henrik Swanström, at Reply

      It’s more likely it’s butthurt republicans who disliked without watching the video thinking Ana advocated for regulations on free speech instead of arguing for it.