I finally heard a talking head express the need for Google, You Tube, Facebook, Twitter et al, to become involved in the fight against terrorism. I didn't catch the talking head's name but he did a good job of outlining steps that each of these companies could take that would 1. preserve freedom of speech but 2. shut down the social media efforts of extreme Islam which accounts for most of their success at disseminating their ideology and garnering global support.

It seems to me that such companies owe it to those who have suffered at the hands of such hatred to do more and to be better global citizens. Can anyone here expound on what efforts are already made? Surely there needs to be more responsibility on their shoulders than merely reporting incidents to the FBI, CIA, MI5 and such? And by more responsibility I specifically mean preventative measures from the outset such as not posting vitriol and passing it off as free speech. What kind of teeth does a country have when it comes to the WC3 exactly? I remember hearing that neither China nor Turkey, for example, allow pornography to be accessed within their countries. I'm sure there are others.

I'm also sure there is a fine line that such companies would need to walk in order to preserve free speech but these are some bright folks and I'm cconfident they can establish appropriate ground rules that would suffice or at least make a positive impact.

Quite honestly, I am shocked that this topic hasn't been front and center sooner. Maybe it has and I've simply missed it. I guess with all the partisan hatred in America these days, possible solutions to global challenges get pushed to the side of MSM in the name of respective spins.

The idea of battling hatred and terror on the Internet is daunting...
There are 4.5 billion pages on the Internet....
The complexity of monitoring all postings, all communications is enormous. Perhaps impossible.
Then there is the complexity of international and national laws.
Free speech laws in the US are much more restrictive on those wishing to shut down hate speech than many other countries.
Technology that hides those who want to be hidden improves every day. Most of ISIS supposedly communicates on a German application not the big players you mentioned...
And there is the Dark Web...

Its just not that easy...

And what threats do you want to follow? In the US right wing extremists are actually considered more of a threat to homeland security than ISIS by the FBI...

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winn ... eres-beat/

rickyp wrote:The idea of battling hatred and terror on the Internet is daunting...
There are 4.5 billion pages on the Internet....
The complexity of monitoring all postings, all communications is enormous. Perhaps impossible.
Then there is the complexity of international and national laws.
Free speech laws in the US are much more restrictive on those wishing to shut down hate speech than many other countries.
Technology that hides those who want to be hidden improves every day. Most of ISIS supposedly communicates on a German application not the big players you mentioned...
And there is the Dark Web...

Its just not that easy...

And what threats do you want to follow? In the US right wing extremists are actually considered more of a threat to homeland security than ISIS by the FBI...

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winn ... eres-beat/

In summary, it's hard and it's complicated, so let's let innocent people die.

Rickyp,

I haven't the slightest clue as to the enormity of such a task. I would suspect it to be daunting. I would expect set backs and mistakes along the way. I would assume politicizing at every step. But the kinds of computing that we are capable of now is also vast and improving everyday. We've got to start somewhere. And I think the major players are a good place to start as any.

We've got to try.

I see this effort as a tool we must use to curtail the current facile flow of insidious ideas that fuels susceptible Muslims or any other susceptible person.

rickyp wrote:And what threats do you want to follow? In the US right wing extremists are actually considered more of a threat to homeland security than ISIS by the FBI...

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winn ... eres-beat/

Yes, but did you notice the thread is about "terrorism?"

In the context of London and Manchester, do you suppose you could let your hatred of rationality go for just a bit?

Dag

We've got to try.

What makes you think that there isn't a considerable effort being made?
The NSA has a budget of $52 billion dollars. Much of it targeting terrorism.
The FBI and CIA have considerable resources expended on anti terrorism.
The combined intelligence and policing resources of the Five Eyes nations, and NATO nations are arrayed against terrorism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 45221.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/po ... plots.html

Individual tech giants like Google, Twitter, Facebook all spend a great deal on combatting hateful elements that promote terrorism.
https://www.wired.com/2016/09/googles-c ... -recruits/
http://www.latimes.com/business/technol ... story.html
https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/6/12811 ... ter-google

The last few incidents of terror have been low tech attacks by self radicalized individuals. Its hard to interdict a plot that only takes a van and three knives and the impulse to act...
Nothing will make safe the entire world from acts like this.... And we never have been entirely safe from acts like this...


Fate

Yes, but did you notice the thread is about "terrorism?"

yes.
Terrorism isn't just coming from Islamic fundamental nut cases...
Your own FBI is actually more worried about people like Jeremy Joseph Christian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... yings.html

The source of much of the funding for ISIS is Saudi Arabia. The source of the fundamental interpretation of Islam that is the font of ISIS is also Saudi Arabia.

In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism

So, if the battle is ideological, shouldn't nations be confronting wahabism? On the Internet especially.

I strongly agree with Ricky here. Intelligence agencies can monitor radical websites. The internet allows for a democratic sharing of information of ideas and knowledge that should only be interfered with the government in compelling circumstances. We should not be trying to change our society just because every so often there is a terrorist attack by radical Muslims. That is what they want--for us to get "terrorized" by these attacks. We should not be cowed by them. Of course, we should constantly reassess our security against these attacks and see if we can do better...but I am not thrilled about major internet monitoring "acceptable" content. Let intelligence agencies decide what websites need to get shut down.

freeman3 wrote:I strongly agree with Ricky here. Intelligence agencies can monitor radical websites. The internet allows for a democratic sharing of information of ideas and knowledge that should only be interfered with the government in compelling circumstances. We should not be trying to change our society just because every so often there is a terrorist attack by radical Muslims. That is what they want--for us to get "terrorized" by these attacks. We should not be cowed by them. Of course, we should constantly reassess our security against these attacks and see if we can do better...but I am not thrilled about major internet monitoring "acceptable" content. Let intelligence agencies decide what websites need to get shut down.

Sorry, but I (for one) do not accept this as the "new normal" that WE have to adapt to. I find it amazing at how many just shrug over terrorism.

Fate

Sorry, but I (for one) do not accept this as the "new normal" that WE have to adapt to.

Juxtapose this position with the acceptance of gun deaths in the USA...
Americans accept the deaths of about 33,000 people a year from gun shot ... and that's normal. And has to be accepted - because Constitution...

For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.

Its funny what one won't accept .... and what one will.
As long as you get to blame some one who is different, or foreign (or both) for the problem ...its a problem that must be dealt with and stomped out at any cost. Even to the point of ignoring constituional rights to privacy ... When the problem is internal like guns ....hey whatyougonnado?

If there is one thing I didn't understand in England, its why it took so long to put up concrete barriers to protect pedestrians on the major bridges... In Europe most public gatherings with pedestrians are well screened now since the incident in Marseille and the Munich fair.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Sorry, but I (for one) do not accept this as the "new normal" that WE have to adapt to.

Juxtapose this position with the acceptance of gun deaths in the USA...
Americans accept the deaths of about 33,000 people a year from gun shot ... and that's normal. And has to be accepted - because Constitution...

For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.

Its funny what one won't accept .... and what one will.

No, it's not funny. Your stats are, as you know, a freaking mess because they include suicides. You do not know if they would choose death some other way.

Far more people die from alcohol and opioids and yet you always start lying about guns. Why is that? Oh, because you want to entrust my safety to the government? No thanks.

As long as you get to blame some one who is different, or foreign (or both) for the problem ...its a problem that must be dealt with and stomped out at any cost. Even to the point of ignoring constituional rights to privacy ... When the problem is internal like guns ....hey whatyougonnado?

It's not guns. So, why don't you just stay in Canada and shut up.

rickyp wrote:
If there is one thing I didn't understand in England, its why it took so long to put up concrete barriers to protect pedestrians on the major bridges... In Europe most public gatherings with pedestrians are well screened now since the incident in Marseille and the Munich fair.

there were metal barriers, but the Mayor of London have them removed because they were "ugly"

Not the current mayor, Sadiq Khan. His predecessor, Boris Johnson.