[putaside]

Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks.

Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives. These companies are directly responsible for giving these terrorists a platform. The free speech-apologists are indirectly responsible for fostering fertile ground for these terrorists.

Yes... blocking this information will also block innocent information. But I rather see that, than see more innocent lives lost. I say: chase them underground. This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed, because their feeds show nothing but dead children being pulled from rubble, Anwar al-Awlaki propaganda, and anti-Semitic hoaxes.

[ohthehugemanate]

So, a founding thought pattern of liberal democracy is that we prefer to allow some false negatives rather than punishing false positives. In justice, we prefer to let some bad people walk free, than to wrongfully imprison. Hence habeas corpus. In privacy, we prefer to let some people do bad things in secret, rather than violate one innocent person's privacy. Hence warrant requirements. In speech, we prefer to let some assholes say/print terrible things, rather than let one innocent thought be censored. Hence free press.

This was cutting edge stuff in the late 1700s, and seemed to be a major model in the 1800s. But I wonder how much it still applies, given how much the world has changed. It certainly seems like these principles are no longer in favor. Most countries have limitations on free speech ("hate speech" laws), no warrant protections on digital privacy, and even limitations on habeas corpus ("terrorist" special cases).

So when Facebook research demonstrated that algorithmic changes can influence people's actions (voting, positive posts, etc), a common response was "wow that's a lot of power. I hope the use it responsibly." The implication was "in favor of liberal democratic values". Well, maybe we DON'T want liberal democratic values any more. Your comment clearly expresses a common mindset, that we don't want the risks that come with those values.

I guess what I'm trying to say can be summed up with "i for one welcome our new algorithmic overlords."

[vonklaus]

interesting. I would never make this trade and find it horrifying.

> This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed

While I respect you view it this way, I have trouble believing this is even slightly reminiscient of reality. You seem to imply that if not for terrorist propaganda on twitter, "pious" people would not be terrorists. I suspect this is an outlandish strawman devoid of any substance.

> At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives.

This has always been the cost. Many people have knowingly given their lives for such ideals. Certainly private corporations have the freedom and latitude to make their own decisions, however, there is a reason freedom of speech was built into the bill of rights.

edit: it was indicated that driving them underground was considered positive, I would also like to respectfully disagree. If we accept this is where the "real" terrorists are congregating (online communities) having them remain in plain view and analyzing their recruitment and propaganda techniques would likely be a high leverage option.

[putaside]

When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content.

Then when the police confiscates their computer and finds Inspire magazine on there, they are branded a terrorist and face jail. While there is a difference between curious rebellious youth and hardcore jihadists, it's very murky when there is such easy access to real damaging stuff.

Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect. Right now innocent bystanders are confronted with their propaganda and may give in (whereas normally they never would).

I know these are American companies, but they are used world-wide. The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though. Europe faces the consequences of this unbridled free speech. You want free (hate) speech? Fine. Create your own website and host your own content. Don't (ab)use these big companies who hide behind our-algo's-could-not-find-it and do not take their responsibility, because they have so many users they can never police them all.

Real terrorists use both the surface web (for recruitment and propaganda) and the underground web (for planning attacks). No smart terrorist uses the surface web for planning. The damage of surface web propaganda far exceeds the damage of having no intel on surface web propaganda.

[vonklaus]

> When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong.

I disagree. In the extremely unlikely event I have to disarm an IED I would like to be able to google this from my mobile. I also own a copy of the anarchist cookbook, and I have for about a decade (acquired around age 16). To date, I have not committed any acts of terrorism.

> This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content.

If being aware of (or actually downloading) torbrowser was the only impediment to terrorism with an IED I would be very uncomfortable. Luckily, I do not accept your appraisal of the situation.

> Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect.

If we accept that interacting with terrorist online should make you a suspect, surely having them be easily accessibly would help lop off the low hanging fruit. I don't actually believe this would be a great course of action, but the logic of keeping terrorists (and potential terrorists) in plain sight is largely pretty sound. Also, how would we verify who was seeking out these terrorists if channels of communication are largely asynchronous and offline as well as executed with varying degrees of obfuscation?

> The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though.

Correct. I indicated they do not have to follow the bill of rights, it is a bill of rights garunteed to be provided by the U.S. Government to its citizenry. However, the point I was making is that many sovereign nations allow for free speech because it is fundamentally important. So important, it is at the cornerstone of the culture of a young and extremely prosperous nation: America.

edit: I respectfully disagree with almost every comment you have made. I don't want to levy an accusation that you are somehow complicit (or actively involved) in perpetuating myths about terrorism, free speech and the tornetwork but if you are not, I find your rhetoric painfully ignorant.

[Dylan16807]

>When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_bomb#Design

If you honestly think trivial information on explosives is going to cause radicalization then you are insane.

[unfathomable]

> Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks.

You could say the same thing about middle eastern war movies propagated by media corporations and military contracts in order to create a stereotypical image of cultures across the seas. In an attempt to sign up more military and invade formerly sovereign middle eastern nations.

[rahkiin]

That first paragraph... What if you would replace 'the west' with 'the islam'? Let's replace 'terrorist organizations' with 'organizations with weapons'. Bear with me. Then it essentially says google, facebook etc are used by military for recruitment for fighting with violence against an opposing view (sorry for my english). Isn't that what western countries do as well? What I mean to say, the difference is very hard to make. Essentially you are removing any content that opposes your (whoever pulls the string) political or religious views. And with the popularity of YT, FB and Twitter, I think that is worth thinking about. What happens if there is a conflict within a western country, whose side are those sites on?

I want to note, for anyone reading this, I do absolutely not condone any actions by any terrorist organizations nor their recruitment methods, at all, and I happily have not seen any of thise horrible videos. I just don't like the western hypocricy.

[putaside]

It is not about attacking/opposing political views, it is about attacking/opposing hate speech and inciting violence. If hate speech also happens to be a political view, then too bad.

Yes, Western countries are also guilty of propaganda. But they are a bit more subtle about it and do not go over the edge as often. That edge is: (inciting) violence.

This could be qualified as extremist content (if one were to be as objective as possible): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs And I would be ok if that were removed.

[rahkiin]

I do agree the west is more subtle. But aren't some westerners calling up 'getting rid of the islam/muslims' and that sorts? When does such qualify as hate speech?

I just don't know :(

[cpncrunch]

Well, Trump isn't saying we should kill them, only deport them. I think that is objectionable, but I don't think it meets the criteria for hate speech. There is obviously a line, and Trump hasn't quite crossed it yet.

[abtinf]

Please cite a video where Trump says the US should deport anyone other than illegal aliens.

[cpncrunch]

Sorry, I meant prevent immigration of muslims.

[TrickzOnU]

No, trump has not said that -- but plenty of conservative commentators in the US have said that. It will be interesting whether those videos get banned too.

[iofj]

Problem of course is that muslim countries, and plenty of muslims, are extremely intolerant of things like freedom of religion, opinion, and are in favor of things like killing gays and the like ?

Tolerating intolerant ideologies is not good, it is not social, it does not "fight racism". It it quite the opposite of that.