3 comments

[ 1.1 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] thread
Und? If republican politicians talk nazi shit why should their speech be protected because they are republican politicians?

If one group their speech should be put under a enlarging glass then it's politicians in general as they are the ones that can cause the most dangerous situations in society with their speech.

I thought the article was clear that the company was likely worried about backlash for doing so:

> Banning politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all of the white supremacist propaganda, ...

> But external experts Motherboard spoke to said that the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters.

However, it didn't say what that backlash might be, other than referencing a comment by DJT: “No wonder Congress wants to get involved—and they should.”

> “Most people can agree a beheading video or some kind of ISIS content should be proactively removed, but when we try to talk about the alt-right or white nationalism, we get into dangerous territory, where we’re talking about [Iowa Rep.] Steve King or maybe even some of Trump’s tweets, so it becomes hard for social media companies to say all of this ‘this content should be removed,’” Amarasingam said.

Yes, if you're starting out labeling right wing politicians as nazis, you'll end up with an AI that classifies them as nazis.