One year ago, the stupid European Commission and four major social media platforms announced a stupid ode of Conduct on countering illegal online hate speech.

It’s amazing how the establishment controls hoi polloi by censorship.  Every blog that dares tell the truth about the established institutions of politics, religion, education, and society is suspended by the blogging platforms for violating the terms of service.  Governments, big investors, and big donors are part of this scheme to gag dissenting voices.

The established media of course like this game, because they get rid of competition.  The only way out is either to write for big media or to speak in public.  That’s why I enjoy being a keynote speaker.  When I speak in public, nobody can censor me, no matter what I say about kleptocrats, warmongers, and charlatans.  Public speaking is now the only game in town for free speech. 

It included a series of stupid commitments by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft to combat the spread of such content in Europe. An evaluation carried out by NGOs and public bodies in 24 Member States, released on the first anniversary of the Code of Conduct, shows that the companies have made significant progress in following up on their stupid commitments.

Never forget that hate speech is also a part of free speech.  It’s amazing how frequently politicians accuse their competitors of hate speech or fake news. Instead of arguments based on facts and reason, we read nonsense based on false accusations and superstition.   

Schools and religions are major tools in brainwashing and controlling hoi polloi. It’s inhumane and ridiculous to imprison kids in schools for many years in order to indoctrinate them to the status quo and keep teachers busy.  Even though all religions are wrong and mumbo-jumbo escape from reality, governments support them in order to hoodwink the masses about the divinity of suffering.

Andrus Ansip, stupid European Commission Vice President for the Digital Single Market, welcomed progress: Working closely with the private sector and civil society to fight illegal hate speech brings results, and we will redouble our joint efforts. We are now working to ensure closer coordination between the different initiatives and forums that we have launched with online platforms. We will also bring more clarity to notice and action procedures to remove illegal content in an efficient way – while preserving freedom of speech, which is essential.

Vĕra Jourová, stupid EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, said: The results of our second evaluation of the Code of Conduct are encouraging. The companies are now removing twice as many cases of illegal hate speech and at a faster rate when compared to six months ago. This is an important step in the right direction and shows that a self-regulatory approach can work, if all actors do their part. At the same time, companies carry a great responsibility and need to make further progress to deliver on all the commitments. For me, it is also important that the IT companies provide better feed-back to those who notified cases of illegal hate speech content.

Germany has formally announced its draconian push towards censorship of social media. This stupid law is a code of conduct, which Germany pressed upon Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in late 2015, and which included a pledge to delete hate speech from their websites within 24 hours.

This law sets out binding standards for the way operators of social networks deal with complaints and obliges them to delete criminal content. Statements that are deemed illegal under German law are now being conflated with statements that are merely deemed, subjectively and on the basis of entirely random complaints from social media users, who are free to abuse the code of conduct to their heart’s content, to be hate speech. Hate speech includes critiques of migration policies. To be in disagreement with the government’s policies is now criminal. Social media companies, such as Facebook, are supposed to be the government’s informers and enforcers, working at the speed of light to comply with the 24-hour rule. Rule of law, clearly, as in North Korea, Iran, Russia or any banana-republic, has no place in this system.

Social media platforms with more than two million users are obliged to delete or block any libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. The networks receive seven days for more complicated cases. Government could fine a social media company up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law; it could fine a company’s chief representative up to 5 million euros.

The European Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law and fundamental rights. The EU and its Member States, together with social media companies and other platforms have a responsibility to act so that the internet does not become a free haven for illegal hate speech and violence.

By signing the stupid Code of Conduct, the IT companies committed in particular to reviewing the majority of valid notifications of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and to removing or disabling access to such content, if necessary, on the basis of national laws transposing European law. The stupid Code also underlined the need to further discuss how to promote transparency and encourage counter and alternative narratives.

One year after its adoption, the stupid Code of Conduct on countering free speech online has delivered some important progress, while many problems remain:

On average,in 59% of the cases, the IT companies responded to notifications concerning illegal hate speech by removing the content. This is more than twice the level of 28% that was recorded six months earlier.
The amount of notifications reviewed within 24 hours improved from 40% to 51% in the same six months period. Facebook is however the only company that fully achieves the target of reviewing the majority of notifications within the day.

As compared with the situation six months ago the IT companies have become better at treating notifications coming from citizens in the same way as those coming from organisations which use trusted reporters channels. Still, some differences persist and the overall removal rates remain lower when a notification originates from the public.

Finally, the monitoring showed that while Facebook sends systematic feedback to users on how their notifications have been assessed, practices differed considerably among the IT companies. Quality of feedback motivating the decision is an area where further progress can be made.

Improvements in the handling of complaints from users and cooperation with civil society

Within the last year, the IT companies have strengthened their reporting systems and made it easier to report hate speech. They have trained their staff and they have increased their cooperation with civil society. The implementation of the Code of Conduct has strengthened and enlarged the IT companies’ network of trusted flaggers throughout Europe.

The increased cooperation with civil society organisations has led to a higher quality of notifications, more effective handling times and better results in terms of reactions to the notifications.

The stupid Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the stupid Code of conduct with the help of civil society organisations. Improvements are expected by IT companies in particular on transparency of the criteria for analyzing flagged content and feedback to users.

The stupid Commission will take the results of this evaluation into account as part of the work announced in its mid-term review on the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy. The Commission will also continue its work to promote more efficient cooperation between the IT companies and national authorities.

The stupid Framework Decision on Combatting Racism and Xenophobia criminalizes the public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Hate speech as defined in this Framework Decision is a criminal offence also when it occurs in the online world.

A recent European survey showed that 75% of those following or participating in debates online had come across episodes of abuse, threat or hate speech. Almost half of these respondents said that this deterred them from engaging in online discussions.

The EU, its Member States, together with social media companies and other platforms, all share a collective responsibility to promote and facilitate freedom of expression throughout the online world. At the same time, all of these actors have a responsibility to ensure that the internet does not become a free haven for violence and hatred.

To respond to the increased problem of illegal hate speech in the online world, the European Commission and four major IT companies (Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube) presented a “Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online”on the 31 May 2016.On 7 December 2016 the Commission presented the results of a first monitoring exercise to evaluate the implementation of this code of conduct.

The mid-term review on the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy issued on 10 May 2017 confirmed the need to continue working towards minimum procedural requirements for the ‘notice and action’ procedures of online intermediaries, including as concerns quality criteria for notices, counter-notice procedures, reporting obligations, third-party consultation mechanisms and dispute resolution systems. In the same vein, the Commission’s proposal for a revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive contains strong provisions to oblige platforms to set in place a flagging system for audiovisual material containing hate speech online.

The stupid Commission has set up several dialogues with online platforms within the Digital Single Market (e.g. EU Internet Forum, Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech, and Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods over the Internet) and plans to coordinate these in a more efficient way to ensure the best possible results. These IT companies are also members of the “Alliance to better protect minors online”, a multi-stakeholder platform facilitated by the European Commission to provide a better and safer digital environment to tackle harmful content and behavior.

These efforts, initiated by the stupid Commission, also contribute to the action of G7 leaders who have recently committed to supporting industry efforts and increasing engagement with civil society to combat online extremism.

If Facebook insists on operating under rules of censorship, it should at the very least aim to administer those rules in a fair manner. Facebook, however, does not even pretend that it administers its censorship in any way that approximates fairness. Instead, Facebook’s practice of its so-called Community Standards, the standards to which Facebook refers when deleting or allowing content on its platform in response to user complaints, shows evidence of entrenched bias. Posts critical of migrant policies, for example, can get categorized as Islamophobia, and are often found to violate Community Standards, while incitement to actual violence and the murder of Jews and Israelis by Palestinian Arabs is generally considered as conforming to Facebook’s Community Standards!

Facebook’s bias is so strong that it recently restored Palestinian Arab terrorist group Fatah’s Facebook page, which incites hatred and violence against Jews, despite having shut it down only three days earlier. In 2016 alone, this page had a minimum of 130 posts glorifying terror and the murder of Jews.

EU is now imposing censorship on email providers and ordering postal authorities to screen letters, magazines, and brochures in the event that citizens spread xenophobia and fake news. During the Cold War, people living behind the Iron Curtain had their private letters opened by the communist authorities. Those passages deemed to be out of line with the communist orthodoxy, were simply blacked out. So many years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), EU is reinventing itself in the image of the Soviet Union!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s