Translation of the article:
[B]Hate speech[/B] = disagreeing opinion on the internet.
[B]Offensive posts[/B] = completely subjective definition of something that most of the time is someone pointing out your flawed/non existent logic.
[B]Twitter not tolerating abuse[/B] = Twitter contemplating the possibility for users to block other users.
But seriously: [B]"French law states that racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic content must be removed from websites."[/B]
Why? Why should social media sites be responsible for removing and monitoring everything users can submit?
Sure real racism and such shouldn't be tolerated, but i have a feeling this is about someone calling someone else faggot on the internet.
In the end this law seems to contradict freedom of speech. It's a double edged sword, either you allow freedom of speech or you start removing posts.
Maybe for good intent at first, but it's a slippery slope when the rules for removing are becoming more and more subjective opinions of someone.
[QUOTE=nVidia;50331741]Translation of the article:
[B]Hate speech[/B] = disagreeing opinion on the internet.
[B]Offensive posts[/B] = completely subjective definition of something that most of the time is someone pointing out your flawed/non existent logic.
[B]Twitter not tolerating abuse[/B] = Twitter contemplating the possibility for users to block other users.
But seriously: [B]"French law states that racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic content must be removed from websites."[/B]
Why? Why should social media sites be responsible for removing and monitoring everything users can submit?
Sure real racism and such shouldn't be tolerated, but i have a feeling this is about someone calling someone else faggot on the internet.
In the end this law seems to contradict freedom of speech. It's a double edged sword, either you allow freedom of speech or you start removing posts.
Maybe for good intent at first, but it's a slippery slope when the rules for removing are becoming more and more subjective opinions of someone.[/QUOTE]
Say hello France to the futility of this law. I can only see them losing because they are going after the BIG THREE.
[QUOTE=nVidia;50331741]Translation of the article:
[B]Hate speech[/B] = disagreeing opinion on the internet.
[B]Offensive posts[/B] = completely subjective definition of something that most of the time is someone pointing out your flawed/non existent logic.
[B]Twitter not tolerating abuse[/B] = Twitter contemplating the possibility for users to block other users.
But seriously: [B]"French law states that racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic content must be removed from websites."[/B]
Why? Why should social media sites be responsible for removing and monitoring everything users can submit?
Sure real racism and such shouldn't be tolerated, but i have a feeling this is about someone calling someone else faggot on the internet.
In the end this law seems to contradict freedom of speech. It's a double edged sword, either you allow freedom of speech or you start removing posts.
Maybe for good intent at first, but it's a slippery slope when the rules for removing are becoming more and more subjective opinions of someone.[/QUOTE]
Why would it be a slippery slope? Hate speech isn't allowed anywhere else in France and it works fine as far as I know so why should it be allowed on social medias?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50331874]Why would it be a slippery slope? Hate speech isn't allowed anywhere else in France and it works fine as far as I know so why should it be allowed on social medias?[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with that is if someone is being a racist douchebag in say, an hotel, you wouldn't sue the hotel, you would sue the person. Same logic applies to social medias, they're nothing more that public places, but online. I prefer to keep seing disgusting stuff and having proof to sue the guy than straight up removal by a thought police. It's not like you can't block people on every social media ever.
[QUOTE=NapyDaWise;50331906]The problem I have with that is if someone is being a racist douchebag in say, an hotel, you wouldn't sue the hotel, you would sue the person. Same logic applies to social medias, they're nothing more that public places, but online. I prefer to keep seing disgusting stuff and having proof to sue the guy than straight up removal by a thought police. It's not like you can't block people on every social media ever.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what to think to be honest, but I find your analogy a little confusing, sure if it's one racist douchebag, but it's not one racist post, so what if it's 20 of them every week and the hotel doesn't do anything about it? I feel like the analogy doesn't really work there.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50331928]I'm not sure what to think to be honest, but I find your analogy a little confusing, sure if it's one racist douchebag, but it's not one racist post, so what if it's 20 of them every week and the hotel doesn't do anything about it? I feel like the analogy doesn't really work there.[/QUOTE]
If the hotel has millions of guests per day, 20 or so racists isn't a lot. Replace "the hotel" with your favorite social media.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50331952]If the hotel has millions of guests per day, 20 or so racists isn't a lot. Replace "the hotel" with your favorite social media.[/QUOTE]
Assuming that 20 in a few millions is proportional, yeah you're right but it still doesn't translate well, if 20 people at a party are committing hate speech then that'd be illegal even if they're in a hotel I think. I don't know french law well enough to clearly understand the situation, and applying the law onto a digital medium makes it even blurrier.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50332026]Assuming that 20 in a few millions is proportional, yeah you're right but it still doesn't translate well, if 20 people at a party are committing hate speech then that'd be illegal even if they're in a hotel I think. I don't know french law well enough to clearly understand the situation, and applying the law onto a digital medium makes it even blurrier.[/QUOTE]
Sure, it would be illegal, and you would prosecute the people, not the hotel. Just as it should be online, as well.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50332026]Assuming that 20 in a few millions is proportional, yeah you're right but it still doesn't translate well, if 20 people at a party are committing hate speech then that'd be illegal even if they're in a hotel I think. I don't know french law well enough to clearly understand the situation, and applying the law onto a digital medium makes it even blurrier.[/QUOTE]
Basically what I'm trying to say is that attacking facebook, twitter, and youtube for stuff their user said isn't going to fix the problem. Moderating thoses website would take huge manpower and time, and would go against free speech. However, they should indeed take down stuff if required by the authorities, and provide any help possible in finding the culprit.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50332026]Assuming that 20 in a few millions is proportional, yeah you're right but it still doesn't translate well, if 20 people at a party are committing hate speech then that'd be illegal even if they're in a hotel I think. I don't know french law well enough to clearly understand the situation, and applying the law onto a digital medium makes it even blurrier.[/QUOTE]
Then again, what is hate speech? It is a way too subjective definition to take legal action for.
These days it seems to be something you just shout when you lose an argument.
[QUOTE=nVidia;50336274]Then again, what is hate speech? It is a way too subjective definition to take legal action for.
These days it seems to be something you just shout when you lose an argument.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's why we have judges and dictionaries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
