The Guardian: Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft team up to tackle extremist content
The tech companies plan to create a shared database of ‘unique digital fingerprints’ that can identify images and videos promoting terrorism
Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft have pledged to work together to identify and remove extremist content on their platforms through an information-sharing initiative.
The companies are to create a shared database of unique digital fingerprints – known as “hashes” – for images and videos that promote terrorism. This could include recruitment videos or violent terrorist imagery or memes. When one company identifies and removes such a piece of content, the others will be able to use the hash to identify and remove the same piece of content from their own network.
Read more ....
More News On Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, And YouTube Setting Up A Database For Terrorist Content
Facebook and Other Tech Companies Seek to Curb Flow of Terrorist Content -- NYT
Facebook and other tech giants are setting up a database for terrorist content -- CNN
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube team up to purge terror content from web -- Washington Times
Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube team up to stop terrorist propaganda -- The Independent
Big Social Media Companies Team Up to Combat Terrorist Content -- Fortune
Terrorism Database: Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and YouTube Partner To Share Info -- International Business Times
Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube are creating a database of 'terrorist content' -- The Verge
Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, YouTube launch shared terrorist media database -- Wired
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft are teaming up against “online terrorist content“ -- Quartz
6 comments:
About Time !
HB: While I tend to agree with your sentiment, my first thought on this is "this is probably illegal and anyone doing this would likely would be fined heavily by the courts." After all it is a "Constitutional" issue. As such, none of these companies would have dreamed of doing something like this. Also, there is the threat of reprisals by the Islamic terrorists themselves against the employees of these companies, the executives, and all of their families.
If they are doing this now, this tells me a few things. 1.)The Islamic terrorist threat is far greater than is generally known. (Actually I've known this one for quite some time. If the government and the powers that be actually leveled with the American people about the true nature of the threat, the US economy and probably that of much of the world would completely collapse as people would be unwilling to leave their homes very much, much less conduct commerce.) 2.)The incoming Trump Administration has pledged to do all it can to defend these companies against the lawsuits that are going to be coming against them from various "civil rights" groups. To expect such assistance from the Obama Administration would have been problematic at best. 3.)The incoming Trump Administration has pledged to supply additional security protection to the company executives, their families, the employees of these companies, and their families. After all such a change in policy will involve increased risk for them that is enormous in scale.
....and Muslim profiles?
Illegal ? You kidding me ? This terorism contents is the same thing in baning nazy and antisemism contents and how give s a rat ass as long wil stop Islamic extremism propaganda in recruiting psychopaths killing innocent people.
The real question is how many people could be saved by banning extremist propaganda !
Depends on what is defined as "extremist propoganda".
Bob,
Muslims should be profiled. We took far greater measures against people of Japanese descent during WWII. The threat posed by Islamic terrorists and the nations who support them is far greater t gan the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. As uch, profiling Muslims would seem justified.
Christians are already being profiled and they pose a threat to no one. Profiling those whose population has significant numbers who pose a threat makes sense.
Please note I use "we" metaphorically with regards to WWII era Americans. "We" as in the American people living today don't have tge stomach for the kinds of actions taken in WWII even if the survival of the country depended on it.
HB: You may have misunderstood. I actually agree with you. When I use the term "illegal" in this instance, I mean it in terms of how the courts will likely view it. I'm pretty sure these companies look at it this way too.
From a pragmatic point of view you are 100% correct. Unfortunately judges and many political leaders deal in ideology and completely ignore pragmatism.
Phil,
You're correct. The courts will simply define it as non extremist have th propaganda making it protected free spedch opening up the companies who try to monitor it and stop it to BIG monetary judgements. As I stated, before proceeding they are going to eant to make sure the backing of the incoming Administration to back them up. To be considering this now, they must be thinking they have plus the additional security they are going to need.
Post a Comment