Tech giants to decide what hate speech is

Some of the world's largest tech firms will take down posts amounting to hate speech within 24 hours.

---

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft have agreed to a European Union (EU) code of conduct to tackle online hate speech within 24 hours in Europe.

EU governments have been trying in recent months to get social platforms to crack down on rising online racism following the refugee crisis and terror attacks.

As part of the pledge agreed with the European Commission, the Web giants will review the majority of valid requests for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to the content if necessary.

"The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people," says EU justice commissioner Vera Jourova.

By agreeing to the code, the tech companies pledge to "take the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online", as stated in the document.

This means the companies will decide what hate speech is, on their platforms, not the government or law enforcement.

Not all parties involved were happy with the decision, saying this takes the procedure out of the legal process.

The European Digital Rights group, which advocates for defending rights and freedoms in the digital environment, released a joint statement, with digital activist group Access Now, saying: "We do not have confidence in the ill-considered 'code of conduct' that was agreed."

The groups say the code "downgrades the law to second-class status, behind the 'leading role' of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service".

"This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression as legal but controversial content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take down mechanism."

The groups say the agreement was drawn up almost exclusively by US-based Internet companies and representatives of EU member states. They say public input was not considered.

Arthur Goldstuck, World Wide Worx MD, says there are two separate issues at play. "One is the terms and conditions of service providers, which have always limited what can be done or said on a specific platform. That doesn't suddenly go away.

"And then there are the legal limits which must clearly outline what is unlawful and what sanctions would apply to such unlawful activity. There are many grey areas, but that's not an excuse to do nothing."

Goldstuck says it is not a good idea to have tech companies be the sole arbiters of what constitutes hate speech, although he says they do have a responsibility to act as an initial filter.

The code of conduct is largely a continuation of efforts the companies already take to counter hate speech on their Web sites, such as developing tools for people to report hateful content and training staff to handle such requests.

Twitter has suspended over 125 000 accounts since the middle of 2015 for threatening or promoting terror acts, primarily related to the Islamic State.

"There are some clearly defined categories and examples of hate speech for which filters can be implemented. After that, it becomes more of a legal process," says Goldstuck.

"You can't take every racist outburst or threat of violence to the courts and wait for the cases to play themselves out. There must be a clear set of lines that cannot be crossed."

ICT commentator Adrian Schofield says taking the process outside the legal system will ensure offending material is removed more quickly and at much lower cost.

"Whether the tech companies form the first line of defence against hate speech or any other institution is involved, the decision is inevitably subjective... Only taking the matter to court can remove that subjectivity, if then.

"The EU is both a massive bureaucracy and a cooperative community of nations. The plus side is that people have freedom of movement and companies have larger markets. The downside is that companies can get mired in red tape, so complying voluntarily can make life easier for all."