New&nbsp;Zealand&nbsp;said on Friday that it plans to strengthen its hate speech laws, and increase penalties for inciting hatred and discrimination, in response to the attack by a white supremacist in Christchurch two years ago that killed 51 Muslims.

The move comes after a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch attack on March 15, 2019, recommended changes to hate speech and hate crime laws, which it said were weak deterrents for people targeting religious and other minority groups with hate.

New&nbsp;Zealand's hate speech laws have resulted in just one prosecution and two civil claims so far, the Royal Commission had noted.

"Protecting our right to freedom of expression while balancing that right with protections against ‘hate speech’ is something that requires careful consideration and a wide range of input,” Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said at a press conference.

The government proposed&nbsp;new&nbsp;criminal offences for hate speech that it said would be clearer and more effective.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/covid-19-delta-variant-is-infecting-vaccinated-people-says-israel-393811">Also Read |&nbsp;COVID-19: Delta variant is infecting vaccinated people, says Israel</a>

Under the proposal a person who "intentionally stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred" would break the law if they did so by being threatening, abusive or insulting, including by inciting violence, the government said.

Punishment for such offences would be increased to a maximum of three years in prison or a fine of up to NZ$50,000. Currently, the punishment is up to NZ$7,000 or three months in jail.

It also proposed provisions that would protect trans, gender diverse and intersex people from discrimination. Current laws only target speech that "excite hostility" against a person or group on the grounds of their colour, race or ethnicity.

The proposals are now open for public consultation.

Australian Brenton Tarrant killed 51 people and injured dozens when he opened fire on Muslim worshippers in two mosques in Christchurch, shortly after releasing a racist manifesto online, and streamed the shootings live on Facebook.

With support across the political spectrum,&nbsp;New&nbsp;Zealand&nbsp;swiftly banned the sale of the high-capacity semi-automatic weapons Tarrant used. But changes to hate speech laws have been more contentious as some political parties said it would impede free speech.

"The government’s proposed hate speech laws are a huge win for cancel culture and will create an even more divided society,”&nbsp;New&nbsp;Zealand's smaller ACT Party leader David Seymour said in a statement.

New Zealand said on Friday that it plans to strengthen its hate speech laws, and increase penalties for inciting hatred and discrimination, in response to the attack by a white supremacist in Christchurch two years ago that killed 51 Muslims.

New Zealand said on Friday that it plans to strengthen its hate speech laws, and increase penalties for inciting hatred and discrimination, in response to the attack by a white supremacist in Christchurch two years ago that killed 51 Muslims. The move comes after a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch attack on March 15, 2019, recommended changes to hate speech and hate crime laws, which it said were weak deterrents for people targeting religious and other minority groups with hate. New Zealand's hate speech laws have resulted in just one prosecution and two civil claims so far, the Royal Commission had noted. "Protecting our right to freedom of expression while balancing that right with protections against ‘hate speech’ is something that requires careful consideration and a wide range of input,” Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said at a press conference. The government proposed new criminal offences for hate speech that it said would be clearer and more effective. Also Read | COVID-19: Delta variant is infecting vaccinated people, says Israel Under the proposal a person who "intentionally stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred" would break the law if they did so by being threatening, abusive or insulting, including by inciting violence, the government said. Punishment for such offences would be increased to a maximum of three years in prison or a fine of up to NZ$50,000. Currently, the punishment is up to NZ$7,000 or three months in jail. It also proposed provisions that would protect trans, gender diverse and intersex people from discrimination. Current laws only target speech that "excite hostility" against a person or group on the grounds of their colour, race or ethnicity. The proposals are now open for public consultation. Australian Brenton Tarrant killed 51 people and injured dozens when he opened fire on Muslim worshippers in two mosques in Christchurch, shortly after releasing a racist manifesto online, and streamed the shootings live on Facebook. With support across the political spectrum, New Zealand swiftly banned the sale of the high-capacity semi-automatic weapons Tarrant used. But changes to hate speech laws have been more contentious as some political parties said it would impede free speech. "The government’s proposed hate speech laws are a huge win for cancel culture and will create an even more divided society,” New Zealand's smaller ACT Party leader David Seymour said in a statement.

New Zealand plans stronger hate speech laws in response to Christchurch attack

Facebook Inc's Instagram is rolling out a feature to prevent users from viewing possibly abusive messages by filtering offensive words, phrases and emojis on the photo-sharing app.

The company said on Wednesday that along with the filter option for abusive direct messages, it will also make it harder for people blocked by users to circumvent and contact them through new accounts.

Instagram has been pushing on its efforts to tackle hate speech and online abuse on its platform, which is more popular than Facebook's main app among teens and young adults.

The filter, which can be activated on Instagram in privacy settings, can be customized by users to include words, phrases and emojis that they wish to block or avoid receiving in their message requests.

Users can use their discretion to report, delete or open messages, which will be sorted into a hidden requests folder, Instagram said.

The feature, which is only applicable to direct message requests and not the inbox itself, will roll out in some countries in the coming weeks, said Instagram.

Starting in a few weeks, all users will also have the extended option to entirely block out people from contacting them on Instagram, after blocking their account.

Facebook's independent Oversight Board announced Tuesday it would start accepting requests to remove "harmful content" that users believe has been wrongly allowed to remain on the leading social network.

The move has the potential to vastly expand the work of the so-called "supreme court" of Facebook, which up to now had been tasked with reviewing instances of whether content was improperly taken down from Facebook or&nbsp;Instagram.

The announcement comes with Facebook and other social platforms facing intense pressure to act on misinformation and abusive content, ranging from election-related hoaxes to unproven Covid-19 treatments.

Users who feel that harmful posts, photos, videos, comments and shares remain online will be able to appeal to the panel to have them removed.

As part of the new process, the panel will establish procedures including privacy protections for users seeking takedown requests.

Instagram&nbsp;is also letting a small number of users around the world decide whether to show "like" counts on their posts or see them on content shared by other people.

(With inputs from agencies)

Facebook Inc's Instagram is rolling out a feature to prevent users from viewing possibly abusive messages by filtering offensive words, phrases and emojis on the photo-sharing app.

Facebook Inc's Instagram is rolling out a feature to prevent users from viewing possibly abusive messages by filtering offensive words, phrases and emojis on the photo-sharing app. The company said on Wednesday that along with the filter option for abusive direct messages, it will also make it harder for people blocked by users to circumvent and contact them through new accounts. Instagram has been pushing on its efforts to tackle hate speech and online abuse on its platform, which is more popular than Facebook's main app among teens and young adults. The filter, which can be activated on Instagram in privacy settings, can be customized by users to include words, phrases and emojis that they wish to block or avoid receiving in their message requests. Users can use their discretion to report, delete or open messages, which will be sorted into a hidden requests folder, Instagram said. The feature, which is only applicable to direct message requests and not the inbox itself, will roll out in some countries in the coming weeks, said Instagram. Starting in a few weeks, all users will also have the extended option to entirely block out people from contacting them on Instagram, after blocking their account. Facebook's independent Oversight Board announced Tuesday it would start accepting requests to remove "harmful content" that users believe has been wrongly allowed to remain on the leading social network. The move has the potential to vastly expand the work of the so-called "supreme court" of Facebook, which up to now had been tasked with reviewing instances of whether content was improperly taken down from Facebook or Instagram. The announcement comes with Facebook and other social platforms facing intense pressure to act on misinformation and abusive content, ranging from election-related hoaxes to unproven Covid-19 treatments. Users who feel that harmful posts, photos, videos, comments and shares remain online will be able to appeal to the panel to have them removed. As part of the new process, the panel will establish procedures including privacy protections for users seeking takedown requests. Instagram is also letting a small number of users around the world decide whether to show "like" counts on their posts or see them on content shared by other people. (With inputs from agencies)

Instagram rolls out feature to tackle hate speech, abuse

Charged with breaking hate speech laws by tweeting pictures of Islamic State atrocities, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen goes on trial on Wednesday. She has slammed the case as a violation of free speech.&nbsp;

The trial comes as opinion polls show Le Pen will likely face off again against Emmanuel Macron in next year's presidential contest, after her National Rally made its strongest showing ever in the 2017 vote.&nbsp;

Le Pen shared the gruesome images in December 2015, a few weeks after Islamic State group jihadists killed 130 people in Paris attacks, in response to a journalist, who drew a comparison between IS and her party.&nbsp;

One of the pictures showed the body of James Foley, an American journalist beheaded by the Islamist militants.&nbsp;

Another showed a man in an orange jumpsuit being run over by a tank, and the third a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage.&nbsp;

"Daesh is this!" Le Pen wrote in a caption, using an Arabic acronym for IS.&nbsp;

Le Pen later deleted the picture of Foley after a request from his family, saying she had been unaware of his identity.&nbsp;

In 2018, a judge charged her as well as Gilbert Collard, a National Rally colleague, who also tweeted the pictures, with circulating "violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity" and that can be viewed by a minor.&nbsp;

A trial was ordered last year but was delayed by the coronavirus pandemic.&nbsp;

The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros ($90,000).&nbsp;

Le Pen, a lawyer by training, has said she is the victim of a political witch-hunt -- she refused an order to undergo psychiatric tests as part of the inquiry.&nbsp;

She was also stripped of her parliamentary immunity over the pictures.

Charged with breaking hate speech laws by tweeting pictures of Islamic State atrocities, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen goes on trial on Wednesday. She has slammed the case as a violation of free speech.

Charged with breaking hate speech laws by tweeting pictures of Islamic State atrocities, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen goes on trial on Wednesday. She has slammed the case as a violation of free speech. The trial comes as opinion polls show Le Pen will likely face off again against Emmanuel Macron in next year's presidential contest, after her National Rally made its strongest showing ever in the 2017 vote. Le Pen shared the gruesome images in December 2015, a few weeks after Islamic State group jihadists killed 130 people in Paris attacks, in response to a journalist, who drew a comparison between IS and her party. One of the pictures showed the body of James Foley, an American journalist beheaded by the Islamist militants. Another showed a man in an orange jumpsuit being run over by a tank, and the third a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage. "Daesh is this!" Le Pen wrote in a caption, using an Arabic acronym for IS. Le Pen later deleted the picture of Foley after a request from his family, saying she had been unaware of his identity. In 2018, a judge charged her as well as Gilbert Collard, a National Rally colleague, who also tweeted the pictures, with circulating "violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity" and that can be viewed by a minor. A trial was ordered last year but was delayed by the coronavirus pandemic. The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros ($90,000). Le Pen, a lawyer by training, has said she is the victim of a political witch-hunt -- she refused an order to undergo psychiatric tests as part of the inquiry. She was also stripped of her parliamentary immunity over the pictures.

French far-right leader Le Pen on trial for breaking hate speech laws

Twitter Inc has expanded its policy barring hateful speech to include "language that dehumanises people on the basis of race, ethnicity and national origin."

The company had planned to add new categories to the policy over time after testing to ensure it can consistently enforce updated rules.

Twitter banned speech that dehumanises others based on religion or caste last year and updated the rule in March to add age, disability and disease to the list of protected categories.

Civil rights group Color of Change, part of a coalition of advocacy organisations that have been pushing tech companies to reduce hate speech online, called the changes "essential concessions" following years of outside pressure.

In a statement, Color Of Change Vice President Arisha Hatch criticized Twitter for failing to update the policy before November's presidential election, despite repeated warnings by the advocacy groups about violent and dehumanising speech.

Hatch also said Twitter has declined to provide transparency into how its content moderators are trained and the efficacy of its artificial intelligence in identifying content that violates the policy.

Twitter Inc has expanded its policy barring hateful speech to include "language that dehumanises people on the basis of race, ethnicity and national origin." The company had planned to add new categories to the policy over time after testing to ensure it can consistently enforce updated rules.

Twitter Inc has expanded its policy barring hateful speech to include "language that dehumanises people on the basis of race, ethnicity and national origin." The company had planned to add new categories to the policy over time after testing to ensure it can consistently enforce updated rules. Twitter banned speech that dehumanises others based on religion or caste last year and updated the rule in March to add age, disability and disease to the list of protected categories. Civil rights group Color of Change, part of a coalition of advocacy organisations that have been pushing tech companies to reduce hate speech online, called the changes "essential concessions" following years of outside pressure. In a statement, Color Of Change Vice President Arisha Hatch criticized Twitter for failing to update the policy before November's presidential election, despite repeated warnings by the advocacy groups about violent and dehumanising speech. Hatch also said Twitter has declined to provide transparency into how its content moderators are trained and the efficacy of its artificial intelligence in identifying content that violates the policy.

Twitter expands hate speech rules covering race, ethnicity and nationality

An Indian parliamentary committee will question Facebook executives on how the social media giant regulates political content in the country, a panel member told Reuters on Friday, following controversy about its practices.

Facebook and its top lobbying executive in India, Ankhi Das, are facing criticism after a news report said she opposed applying hate-speech rules to a politician from India’s ruling party.

Facebook has been summoned to appear on Sept. 2 before the information technology panel, which considers issues like social media abuse. The discussion with Facebook will last for 30 minutes, according to a notice published late on Thursday.

“The subject is serious because of Facebook’s extensive reach in India ... and the potential for hate speech to incite violence and other unlawful behaviour,” said the panel member, who declined to be identified.

“How worrying this is, is to be determined after a hearing process is concluded.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/facebook-director-receives-death-threats-for-favouring-bjp-321138">Also read:&nbsp;Facebook Director receives death threats for 'favouring' BJP</a>

Facebook - which has more than 300 million users in India, its biggest market - did not respond to a request for comment.

Facebook has long faced criticism for high-profile content moderation issues.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Das told staff that applying hate-speech rules to politicians close to India’s ruling party “would damage the company’s business prospects in the country”.

Facebook has been battling political fallout in India since.

The opposition Congress Party criticised Facebook for its policies, while some ruling-party lawmakers have accused it of censoring nationalist voices.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-says-its-fielding-questions-by-us-regulators-322034">Also read:&nbsp;Facebook says it's fielding questions by US regulators</a>

Separately, Reuters this week reported that some Facebook employees in the United States and beyond have raised questions in internal forums about whether adequate content regulation practices are being followed by the India team and demanded some changes.

Facebook’s soon-to-be-operational content Oversight Board, which some have dubbed the company’s “Supreme Court”, said it was committed to protecting users.&nbsp;

“How Facebook treats posts from public figures that may violate the Community Standards are within the scope of the Board,” the board told Reuters in a statement.

“We won’t shy away from the tough cases and holding Facebook accountable,” said the board, which has powers to overturn decisions by the company and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on whether individual pieces of content should be allowed or not.

An Indian parliamentary committee will question Facebook executives on how the social media giant regulates political content in the country, a panel member told Reuters on Friday, following controversy about its practices.

An Indian parliamentary committee will question Facebook executives on how the social media giant regulates political content in the country, a panel member told Reuters on Friday, following controversy about its practices. Facebook and its top lobbying executive in India, Ankhi Das, are facing criticism after a news report said she opposed applying hate-speech rules to a politician from India’s ruling party. Facebook has been summoned to appear on Sept. 2 before the information technology panel, which considers issues like social media abuse. The discussion with Facebook will last for 30 minutes, according to a notice published late on Thursday. “The subject is serious because of Facebook’s extensive reach in India ... and the potential for hate speech to incite violence and other unlawful behaviour,” said the panel member, who declined to be identified. “How worrying this is, is to be determined after a hearing process is concluded.” Also read: Facebook Director receives death threats for 'favouring' BJP Facebook - which has more than 300 million users in India, its biggest market - did not respond to a request for comment. Facebook has long faced criticism for high-profile content moderation issues. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Das told staff that applying hate-speech rules to politicians close to India’s ruling party “would damage the company’s business prospects in the country”. Facebook has been battling political fallout in India since. The opposition Congress Party criticised Facebook for its policies, while some ruling-party lawmakers have accused it of censoring nationalist voices. Also read: Facebook says it's fielding questions by US regulators Separately, Reuters this week reported that some Facebook employees in the United States and beyond have raised questions in internal forums about whether adequate content regulation practices are being followed by the India team and demanded some changes. Facebook’s soon-to-be-operational content Oversight Board, which some have dubbed the company’s “Supreme Court”, said it was committed to protecting users. “How Facebook treats posts from public figures that may violate the Community Standards are within the scope of the Board,” the board told Reuters in a statement. “We won’t shy away from the tough cases and holding Facebook accountable,” said the board, which has powers to overturn decisions by the company and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on whether individual pieces of content should be allowed or not.

India parliamentary panel to question Facebook on content controversy: Source

After the recent Facebook-BJP controversy, top Facebook officials have been receiving death threats for allegedly favouring the leading political party of India.

Ankhi Das, Director, Public Policy, India, South and&nbsp;Central Asia said people have been sending her death threats and have been posting/circulating obscene messages about her. She filed a complaint with the&nbsp;Cyber Cell of Delhi Police on Monday, August 17. She said the threats began after August 14.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-twitter-step-up-fight-against-misinformation-on-us-elections-320188">Also read|&nbsp;Facebook, Twitter step up fight against misinformation on US elections</a>

Delhi Police has started investigating the matter and will be first investigating the 5-6 people Das mentioned in her complaint.

Das has been receiving threats after American daily&nbsp;Wall Street Journal published a report accusing Facebook of letting the ministers of the ruling party of India post hate messages only to maintain good a relationship with the party leaders. Wall Street Journal alleged that Facebook ignored its hate speech policy when it came to the leaders of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/apple-denied-our-request-to-waive-off-30-commission-fee-facebook-inc-320716">Also read|&nbsp;Apple denied our request to waive off 30% commission fee: Facebook Inc</a>

The article titled 'Facebook’s Hate-Speech Rules Collide With Indian Politics' was published on August 14, a day before India celebrated its 74th Independence Day.&nbsp;

Facebook denied the accusations after the article was published.&nbsp;"We prohibit hate speech and content that incites violence and we enforce these policies globally without regard to anyone's political position or party affiliation. While we know there is more to do, we're making progress on enforcement and conduct regular audits of our process to ensure fairness and accuracy," a Facebook spokesperson said.

Rahul Gandhi also shared the Wall Street Journal article on Twitter saying, "BJP &amp; RSS control Facebook &amp; Whatsapp in India. They spread fake news and hatred through it and use it to influence the electorate. Finally, the American media has come out with the truth about Facebook."

After the recent Facebook-BJP controversy, top Facebook officials have been receiving death threats for allegedly favouring the leading political party of India.

After the recent Facebook-BJP controversy, top Facebook officials have been receiving death threats for allegedly favouring the leading political party of India. Ankhi Das, Director, Public Policy, India, South and Central Asia said people have been sending her death threats and have been posting/circulating obscene messages about her. She filed a complaint with the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police on Monday, August 17. She said the threats began after August 14. Also read| Facebook, Twitter step up fight against misinformation on US elections Delhi Police has started investigating the matter and will be first investigating the 5-6 people Das mentioned in her complaint. Das has been receiving threats after American daily Wall Street Journal published a report accusing Facebook of letting the ministers of the ruling party of India post hate messages only to maintain good a relationship with the party leaders. Wall Street Journal alleged that Facebook ignored its hate speech policy when it came to the leaders of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Also read| Apple denied our request to waive off 30% commission fee: Facebook Inc The article titled 'Facebook’s Hate-Speech Rules Collide With Indian Politics' was published on August 14, a day before India celebrated its 74th Independence Day. Facebook denied the accusations after the article was published. "We prohibit hate speech and content that incites violence and we enforce these policies globally without regard to anyone's political position or party affiliation. While we know there is more to do, we're making progress on enforcement and conduct regular audits of our process to ensure fairness and accuracy," a Facebook spokesperson said. Rahul Gandhi also shared the Wall Street Journal article on Twitter saying, "BJP & RSS control Facebook & Whatsapp in India. They spread fake news and hatred through it and use it to influence the electorate. Finally, the American media has come out with the truth about Facebook."

Facebook Director receives death threats for 'favouring' BJP

Facebook is now being accused of promoting hateful content taking money through misleading political advertisements and overall having a very week policy regarding combating hate. Watch report.

Facebook's CEO Zuckerberg accused of promoting hate

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.&nbsp;

The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP.

Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable.

These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general.&nbsp;

Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws.

A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country.

Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long.

It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation.

&nbsp;After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's&nbsp;time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too.

It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics.

The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end. The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP. Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable. These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general. Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws. A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country. Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long. It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation. After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too. It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics. The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Hate speech is not free speech

A Pakistani court on Wednesday approved the bail plea of former Pakistan Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-former-pm-nawaz-sharif-granted-bail-on-medical-grounds-for-8-weeks-258663">Nawaz Sharif's</a> son-in-law, Captain (retired) Muhammad Safdar in a hate speech case. 
 
Safdar was arrested on October 21 for allegedly passing derogatory comments on the Pakistani Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa and the apex court judges. The case had been registered against him under section 16 of the MPO and additional charges were also added after he was presented before the court. 
 
Geo News reported that Lahore's session court-approved Safdar's bail plea and has asked him to submit a surety bond of Pakistani Rupees 2,00,000. 
 
Safdar is a senior leader of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and husband of Maryam Nawaz. He was arrested on a motorway while he was returning to Lahore from Bhera last week.

A Pakistani court on Wednesday approved the bail plea of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's son-in-law, Captain (retired) Muhammad Safdar in a hate speech case.

A Pakistani court on Wednesday approved the bail plea of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's son-in-law, Captain (retired) Muhammad Safdar in a hate speech case. Safdar was arrested on October 21 for allegedly passing derogatory comments on the Pakistani Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa and the apex court judges. The case had been registered against him under section 16 of the MPO and additional charges were also added after he was presented before the court. Geo News reported that Lahore's session court-approved Safdar's bail plea and has asked him to submit a surety bond of Pakistani Rupees 2,00,000. Safdar is a senior leader of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and husband of Maryam Nawaz. He was arrested on a motorway while he was returning to Lahore from Bhera last week.

Muhammad Safdar, son-in-law of Nawaz Sharif granted bail in hate speech case

Malaysian authorities will summon Zakir Naik for questioning after he allegedly made <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/malaysian-minister-demands-action-against-zakir-naik-for-infalmmatory-speeches-242884">racially sensitive remarks </a>in the multi-ethnic nation, the government said on Thursday.

The move comes after several ministers demanded Naik's expulsion on Wednesday after he said Hindus in Malaysia had "100 times more rights" than the Muslim minority in India.

Naik, who has lived in Malaysia for about three years and faces charges of money laundering and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/pm-modi-asks-congressmen-to-sink-to-death-for-supporting-zakir-naik-215142">hate speech in India</a>, has come under fire for comments allegedly pitting the country's ethnic and religious minorities against the ethnic Malay majority, who are predominantly Muslim.

Police will question Naik and several other individuals and groups for making "racially-tinged statements" and for spreading false news that has affected public sensitivities, Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said.

"I would like to remind all parties, including non-citizens, that enforcement agencies under my ministry will not think twice to take legal action against anyone who attempts to threaten public harmony and peace," Muhyiddin said in a statement.

Asked for comment, a representative for Naik told Reuters he would first need to study the minister's statement.

Race and religion are sensitive issues in Malaysia, where Malay Muslims make up about 60 per cent of a population of 32 million. The rest are mostly ethnic Chinese and Indians, most of whom are Hindus.

Naik, who has repeatedly denied the charges against him in India, has said his detractors were quoting him out of context to malign him.

State news agency Bernama quoted Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad as saying this week that Naik cannot be sent back to India because of fears for his safety.

"If any (other) country wants to have him, they are welcome," Mahathir added.

India banned Naik's Islamic Research Foundation in late 2016, accusing him of encouraging and aiding its followers to "promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious communities and groups".

Malaysian authorities will summon Zakir Naik for questioning after he allegedly made racially sensitive remarks in the multi-ethnic nation, the government said on Thursday.

Malaysian authorities will summon Zakir Naik for questioning after he allegedly made racially sensitive remarks in the multi-ethnic nation, the government said on Thursday. The move comes after several ministers demanded Naik's expulsion on Wednesday after he said Hindus in Malaysia had "100 times more rights" than the Muslim minority in India. Naik, who has lived in Malaysia for about three years and faces charges of money laundering and hate speech in India, has come under fire for comments allegedly pitting the country's ethnic and religious minorities against the ethnic Malay majority, who are predominantly Muslim. Police will question Naik and several other individuals and groups for making "racially-tinged statements" and for spreading false news that has affected public sensitivities, Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said. "I would like to remind all parties, including non-citizens, that enforcement agencies under my ministry will not think twice to take legal action against anyone who attempts to threaten public harmony and peace," Muhyiddin said in a statement. Asked for comment, a representative for Naik told Reuters he would first need to study the minister's statement. Race and religion are sensitive issues in Malaysia, where Malay Muslims make up about 60 per cent of a population of 32 million. The rest are mostly ethnic Chinese and Indians, most of whom are Hindus. Naik, who has repeatedly denied the charges against him in India, has said his detractors were quoting him out of context to malign him. State news agency Bernama quoted Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad as saying this week that Naik cannot be sent back to India because of fears for his safety. "If any (other) country wants to have him, they are welcome," Mahathir added. India banned Naik's Islamic Research Foundation in late 2016, accusing him of encouraging and aiding its followers to "promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious communities and groups".

Malaysia to question Zakir Naik over inflammatory speeches

French MPs on Tuesday passed a landmark law to fight online hate speech which will oblige social media networks to remove offending content in 24 hours and create a new button to enable users to flag abuse.

Members of the lower house of parliament voted by 434 in favour to 33 against to adopt the law, which is modelled on German legislation that came into force last year. Sixty-nine MPs abstained.

Sites that fail to comply with the law and remove "obviously hateful" content risk fines of up to 1.25 million euros ($1.4 million).

The upper-house Senate will now examine the legislation and could suggest amendments.

A series of tech giants, including Facebook and YouTube, announced crackdowns on hateful and violent content in recent months, spurring calls for tougher regulation.

Governments accused online platforms of not doing enough to stamp out hate speech in a Paris summit in May after a gunman broadcast his attack on two New Zealand mosques lives on Facebook via a head-mounted camera.&nbsp;

The footage was shared millions of times despite efforts to remove it.

"We must ensure the safety and protection of people online, especially the most vulnerable," said Laetitia Avia, a black MP who drafted the bill.&nbsp;

She told parliament last week she suffers so many racist insults on Twitter that she once thought an abuse-free day was due to a technical problem.

Critics say the law places too much power in the platforms' hands by making them arbiters of online speech.

Social media giant Facebook has questioned whether the 24-hour window to remove hateful content is realistic, saying many posts require careful analysis and tricky legal assessment.

MPs debated long into the night last week to try to agree on what constitutes "obviously hateful" messages or videos.

They agreed to include condoning crimes against humanity. But amendments seeking to integrate specific references to anti-Zionism and hate against the state of Israel were rejected and did not make the final text.

French MPs on Tuesday passed a landmark law to fight online hate speech which will oblige social media networks to remove offending content in 24 hours and create a new button to enable users to flag abuse.

French MPs on Tuesday passed a landmark law to fight online hate speech which will oblige social media networks to remove offending content in 24 hours and create a new button to enable users to flag abuse. Members of the lower house of parliament voted by 434 in favour to 33 against to adopt the law, which is modelled on German legislation that came into force last year. Sixty-nine MPs abstained. Sites that fail to comply with the law and remove "obviously hateful" content risk fines of up to 1.25 million euros ($1.4 million). The upper-house Senate will now examine the legislation and could suggest amendments. A series of tech giants, including Facebook and YouTube, announced crackdowns on hateful and violent content in recent months, spurring calls for tougher regulation. Governments accused online platforms of not doing enough to stamp out hate speech in a Paris summit in May after a gunman broadcast his attack on two New Zealand mosques lives on Facebook via a head-mounted camera. The footage was shared millions of times despite efforts to remove it. "We must ensure the safety and protection of people online, especially the most vulnerable," said Laetitia Avia, a black MP who drafted the bill. She told parliament last week she suffers so many racist insults on Twitter that she once thought an abuse-free day was due to a technical problem. Critics say the law places too much power in the platforms' hands by making them arbiters of online speech. Social media giant Facebook has questioned whether the 24-hour window to remove hateful content is realistic, saying many posts require careful analysis and tricky legal assessment. MPs debated long into the night last week to try to agree on what constitutes "obviously hateful" messages or videos. They agreed to include condoning crimes against humanity. But amendments seeking to integrate specific references to anti-Zionism and hate against the state of Israel were rejected and did not make the final text.

French lower parliament passes online hate speech law

Instagram on Monday announced new features aimed at curbing <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/instagram-in-trouble-as-nearly-50-million-users-data-gets-leaked-online-220423">online bullying on its platform</a>, including a warning to people as they are preparing to post abusive remarks.

"It's our responsibility to create a safe environment on Instagram," said a statement from Adam Mosseri, head of the visually focused social platform owned by Facebook.

"This has been an important priority for us for some time, and we are continuing to invest in better understanding and tackling this problem."

One new tool being rolled out is a warning generated by<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/instagram-now-lets-you-check-your-obsession-for-the-platform-with-its-new-your-activity-feature-177504"> artificial intelligence to notify users</a> their comment may be considered offensive before it is posted.

"This intervention gives people a chance to reflect and undo their comment and prevents the recipient from receiving the harmful comment notification," Mosseri said.&nbsp;

"From early tests of this feature, we have found that it encourages some people to undo their comment and share something less hurtful once they have had a chance to reflect."

Another new tool is aimed at limiting the spread of abusive comments on a user's feed.

"We've heard from young people in our community that they're reluctant to block, unfollow, or report their bully because it could escalate the situation, especially if they interact with their bully in real life," Mosseri commented.

A new feature called "restrict" that is being tested will make posts from an offending person visible only to that person.

"You can choose to make a restricted person's comments visible to others by approving their comments," Mosseri added.

"Restricted people won't be able to see when you're active on Instagram or when you've read their direct messages."

The move by Instagram is the latest in a series of actions on cyberbullying by social networks to deal with hate speech and abusive conduct which can be especially harmful to young users.

Instagram on Monday announced new features aimed at curbing online bullying on its platform, including a warning to people as they are preparing to post abusive remarks.

Instagram on Monday announced new features aimed at curbing online bullying on its platform, including a warning to people as they are preparing to post abusive remarks. "It's our responsibility to create a safe environment on Instagram," said a statement from Adam Mosseri, head of the visually focused social platform owned by Facebook. "This has been an important priority for us for some time, and we are continuing to invest in better understanding and tackling this problem." One new tool being rolled out is a warning generated by artificial intelligence to notify users their comment may be considered offensive before it is posted. "This intervention gives people a chance to reflect and undo their comment and prevents the recipient from receiving the harmful comment notification," Mosseri said. "From early tests of this feature, we have found that it encourages some people to undo their comment and share something less hurtful once they have had a chance to reflect." Another new tool is aimed at limiting the spread of abusive comments on a user's feed. "We've heard from young people in our community that they're reluctant to block, unfollow, or report their bully because it could escalate the situation, especially if they interact with their bully in real life," Mosseri commented. A new feature called "restrict" that is being tested will make posts from an offending person visible only to that person. "You can choose to make a restricted person's comments visible to others by approving their comments," Mosseri added. "Restricted people won't be able to see when you're active on Instagram or when you've read their direct messages." The move by Instagram is the latest in a series of actions on cyberbullying by social networks to deal with hate speech and abusive conduct which can be especially harmful to young users.

Artificial Intelligence to help curb cyber bullying on Instagram with pop-up warning

France Leads The Way In Curbing Hate Speech Online. The Country Has Entered In A Unique Agreement With Facebook Social media giants like Facebook have long grappled with the issue of hate speech in their platforms. Now Facebook has decided to identify hate speech and share the data with France. Will this address the problem? Here's a report

Gravitas: FB to identify hate speech & share data with France

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-nations-calls-for-impartial-inquiry-by-independent-body-into-death-of-egypts-mohamed-morsi-228430">United Nations </a>Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday launched an action plan to curb rising hate speech in the world arena and warned that the world is in danger of forgetting the impact of hate speech.

He blamed the leaders of democracies as well as dictatorships for fueling the spread of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/more-than-300000-flee-congo-violence-complicating-ebola-fight-united-nations-228316">hate speech around the world</a>.

"In both liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, some political leaders are bringing the hate-fuelled ideas and language of these groups into the mainstream, normalizing them, coarsening the public discourse and weakening the social fabric," he said.

The UN chief said that while hate speech has been around for a long time, it is now amplified by social media.

"Around the world, we see a groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, and also anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred," said Guterres.

Launching a Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech at the UN, he declared: "Hate speech may have gained a foothold. But it is now on notice, and we will never stop confronting it."&nbsp;

"Hateful and destructive views are enabled and amplified exponentially through digital technology, often targeting women, minorities, and the most vulnerable. Extremists gather online and radicalise new recruits," he said.&nbsp;

According to the Secretary-General, the new strategy would take aim at the root causes of hate speech — which includes "violence, marginalization, discrimination, poverty, exclusion, inequality, lack of basic education, and weak state institutions".

(With inputs from agencies)

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday launched an action plan to curb rising hate speech in the world arena and warned that the world is in danger of forgetting the impact of hate speech.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday launched an action plan to curb rising hate speech in the world arena and warned that the world is in danger of forgetting the impact of hate speech. He blamed the leaders of democracies as well as dictatorships for fueling the spread of hate speech around the world. "In both liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, some political leaders are bringing the hate-fuelled ideas and language of these groups into the mainstream, normalizing them, coarsening the public discourse and weakening the social fabric," he said. The UN chief said that while hate speech has been around for a long time, it is now amplified by social media. "Around the world, we see a groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, and also anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred," said Guterres. Launching a Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech at the UN, he declared: "Hate speech may have gained a foothold. But it is now on notice, and we will never stop confronting it." "Hateful and destructive views are enabled and amplified exponentially through digital technology, often targeting women, minorities, and the most vulnerable. Extremists gather online and radicalise new recruits," he said. According to the Secretary-General, the new strategy would take aim at the root causes of hate speech — which includes "violence, marginalization, discrimination, poverty, exclusion, inequality, lack of basic education, and weak state institutions". (With inputs from agencies)

Eyeing global 'groundswell' of hate speech, UN launches action plan to combat

Facebook Inc quickly rejected a call from co-founder Chris Hughes on Thursday to split the world's largest social media company in three, while lawmakers urged the US Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation.

Facebook has been under scrutiny from regulators around the world over data sharing practices as well as hate speech and misinformation on its networks. Some US&nbsp;lawmakers have pushed for action to break up big tech companies as well as federal privacy regulation.

"We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well-intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark's power is unprecedented and un-American," Hughes, a former college roommate of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-rejects-co-founder-chris-hughes-call-for-breakup-senator-urges-us-antitrust-probe-217370">Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg</a>, wrote in a lengthy New York Times opinion piece&nbsp;

Facebook's social network has more than 2 billion users. It also owns WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram, each used by more than 1 billion people. Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

Facebook rejected Hughes' call for WhatsApp and Instagram to be made into separate companies and said the focus should instead be on regulating the internet. Zuckerberg will be in Paris on Friday to discuss internet regulation with French President Emmanuel Macron.

"Facebook accepts that with success comes accountability. But you don't enforce accountability by calling for the break up of a successful American company," Facebook spokesman Nick Clegg said in a statement.

"Accountability of tech companies can only be achieved through the painstaking introduction of new rules for the internet. That is exactly what Mark Zuckerberg has called for."

Late on Thursday, Senator Mike Crapo, the Republican who chairs the banking committee and Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat, asked Facebook to answer questions about a potential cryptocurrency-based payments system using its social network and its data collection.

The letter also asked questions about consumer privacy protections and if it had information about users' creditworthiness.

The US&nbsp;Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, told CNBC he thinks Facebook should be broken up and that the Justice Department's antitrust division needs to begin an investigation.

Antitrust law makes such a proposal tough to execute because the government would have to take the company to court and win. It is rare to break up a company but not unheard of, with Standard Oil and AT&amp;T being the two biggest examples.

Sense of responsibility

Hughes co-founded Facebook in 2004 at Harvard with Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz. He left Facebook in 2007, and has said in a LinkedIn post he made half a billion dollars for his three years of work.

"It's been 15 years since I co-founded Facebook at Harvard, and I haven't worked at the company in a decade. But I feel a sense of anger and responsibility," Hughes said.

Facebook lost several executives after a bruising series of privacy and disinformation scandals since 2016. The founders of Instagram and WhatsApp have left, as has the executive who took over WhatsApp last year.

Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, who had been at the company for 13 years and was one of Zuckerberg's closest lieutenants, stepped down in March around the same time Facebook announced a pivot towards more private messaging.

He later cited "artistic differences" with Zuckerberg as his reason for leaving, without elaborating.

Critics say the company's pivot to privacy, which will introduce more encrypted communications, will restrict Facebook's ability to police propaganda, hate speech and another abusive behaviour. Cox focused on improving tools to catch banned content in recent years.

Despite its scandals, the company's core business has proven resilient. Facebook has blown past earnings estimates in the past two quarters and it's stock price barely budged in response to Hughes' opinion piece.

Hughes suggested Zuckerberg should be held responsible for the privacy and other lapses at the company, echoing a call earlier this month by Democratic US&nbsp;Senator Ron Wyden to hold the CEO individually liable for "repeated violations" of privacy.

"The government must hold Mark accountable. For too long, lawmakers have marvelled at Facebook's explosive growth and overlooked their responsibility to ensure that Americans are protected and markets are competitive," Hughes said.

Lawmaker pressure

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, has vowed to break up Facebook, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google if elected.

"Today's big tech companies have too much power—over our economy, our society, &amp; our democracy. They've bulldozed competition, used our private info for profit, hurt small businesses &amp; stifled innovation. It's time to #BreakUpBigTech," Warren said on Twitter on Thursday.

Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in a statement he agreed in retrospect that US&nbsp;regulators should not have approved Facebook's acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp.

"The way forward is to heavily scrutinize future mergers and to ensure no company has anti-competitive platform privileges," Khanna said.

In one of a number of scandals to hit the company, Facebook is accused of inappropriately sharing information belonging to 87 million users with the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook has been in advanced talks with the US&nbsp;Federal Trade Commission to settle a year-old investigation and said last month it expected to spend between $3 billion and $5 billion.

On Monday, Republican and Democratic US&nbsp;senators criticized reported plans for the settlement, calling on the FTC to impose harsher penalties and more restrictions on Facebook's business practices.

Hughes said he last met with Zuckerberg in the summer of 2017, several months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke.

"Mark is a good, kind person. But I'm angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks," Hughes said.

Adam Mosseri, Facebook's previous head of news feed who recently took over Instagram, responded to Hughes on Twitter.

"Regulation is important and necessary, but I'm not convinced breaking us up is the right path. Would love to chat about it if you're open," Mosseri said.

Facebook Inc quickly rejected a call from co-founder Chris Hughes on Thursday to split the world's largest social media company in three, while lawmakers urged the US Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation.

Facebook Inc quickly rejected a call from co-founder Chris Hughes on Thursday to split the world's largest social media company in three, while lawmakers urged the US Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation. Facebook has been under scrutiny from regulators around the world over data sharing practices as well as hate speech and misinformation on its networks. Some US lawmakers have pushed for action to break up big tech companies as well as federal privacy regulation. "We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well-intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark's power is unprecedented and un-American," Hughes, a former college roommate of Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, wrote in a lengthy New York Times opinion piece Facebook's social network has more than 2 billion users. It also owns WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram, each used by more than 1 billion people. Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Facebook rejected Hughes' call for WhatsApp and Instagram to be made into separate companies and said the focus should instead be on regulating the internet. Zuckerberg will be in Paris on Friday to discuss internet regulation with French President Emmanuel Macron. "Facebook accepts that with success comes accountability. But you don't enforce accountability by calling for the break up of a successful American company," Facebook spokesman Nick Clegg said in a statement. "Accountability of tech companies can only be achieved through the painstaking introduction of new rules for the internet. That is exactly what Mark Zuckerberg has called for." Late on Thursday, Senator Mike Crapo, the Republican who chairs the banking committee and Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat, asked Facebook to answer questions about a potential cryptocurrency-based payments system using its social network and its data collection. The letter also asked questions about consumer privacy protections and if it had information about users' creditworthiness. The US Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, told CNBC he thinks Facebook should be broken up and that the Justice Department's antitrust division needs to begin an investigation. Antitrust law makes such a proposal tough to execute because the government would have to take the company to court and win. It is rare to break up a company but not unheard of, with Standard Oil and AT&T being the two biggest examples. Sense of responsibility Hughes co-founded Facebook in 2004 at Harvard with Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz. He left Facebook in 2007, and has said in a LinkedIn post he made half a billion dollars for his three years of work. "It's been 15 years since I co-founded Facebook at Harvard, and I haven't worked at the company in a decade. But I feel a sense of anger and responsibility," Hughes said. Facebook lost several executives after a bruising series of privacy and disinformation scandals since 2016. The founders of Instagram and WhatsApp have left, as has the executive who took over WhatsApp last year. Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, who had been at the company for 13 years and was one of Zuckerberg's closest lieutenants, stepped down in March around the same time Facebook announced a pivot towards more private messaging. He later cited "artistic differences" with Zuckerberg as his reason for leaving, without elaborating. Critics say the company's pivot to privacy, which will introduce more encrypted communications, will restrict Facebook's ability to police propaganda, hate speech and another abusive behaviour. Cox focused on improving tools to catch banned content in recent years. Despite its scandals, the company's core business has proven resilient. Facebook has blown past earnings estimates in the past two quarters and it's stock price barely budged in response to Hughes' opinion piece. Hughes suggested Zuckerberg should be held responsible for the privacy and other lapses at the company, echoing a call earlier this month by Democratic US Senator Ron Wyden to hold the CEO individually liable for "repeated violations" of privacy. "The government must hold Mark accountable. For too long, lawmakers have marvelled at Facebook's explosive growth and overlooked their responsibility to ensure that Americans are protected and markets are competitive," Hughes said. Lawmaker pressure Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, has vowed to break up Facebook, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google if elected. "Today's big tech companies have too much power—over our economy, our society, & our democracy. They've bulldozed competition, used our private info for profit, hurt small businesses & stifled innovation. It's time to #BreakUpBigTech," Warren said on Twitter on Thursday. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in a statement he agreed in retrospect that US regulators should not have approved Facebook's acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp. "The way forward is to heavily scrutinize future mergers and to ensure no company has anti-competitive platform privileges," Khanna said. In one of a number of scandals to hit the company, Facebook is accused of inappropriately sharing information belonging to 87 million users with the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Facebook has been in advanced talks with the US Federal Trade Commission to settle a year-old investigation and said last month it expected to spend between $3 billion and $5 billion. On Monday, Republican and Democratic US senators criticized reported plans for the settlement, calling on the FTC to impose harsher penalties and more restrictions on Facebook's business practices. Hughes said he last met with Zuckerberg in the summer of 2017, several months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. "Mark is a good, kind person. But I'm angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks," Hughes said. Adam Mosseri, Facebook's previous head of news feed who recently took over Instagram, responded to Hughes on Twitter. "Regulation is important and necessary, but I'm not convinced breaking us up is the right path. Would love to chat about it if you're open," Mosseri said.

Facebook rejects co-founder call for breakup, senator urges US antitrust probe

Threats, arrests, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/never-been-on-social-media-your-privacy-may-still-be-at-risk-says-study-191971">blocked accounts and restricted posts</a> -- Big Brother is watching more closely than ever in Pakistan as authorities accelerate efforts to censor <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nepal-social-media-bill-sparks-freedom-of-speech-concerns-198633">social networks</a>, further reducing an already shrunken space for dissent.

In the past 18 months, a slew of journalists, activists, and government opponents –- both at home and overseas -- have faced intimidation or the threat of legal action for their online posts.&nbsp;

Censorship is already rife among Pakistan's mainstream media, with the Committee to Protect Journalists noting last year that the military had "quietly but effectively" imposed strict limits on the scope of general news reporting.

Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were regarded as the last holdouts of dissenting voices, but now that has changed.

In February, authorities announced the creation of a new enforcement arm to root out social media users accused of spreading "hate speech and violence" as part of the crackdown.

Gul Bukhari, a columnist and sometime government critic who was briefly abducted by unidentified men last year, said the assault on social media was carefully organised and coordinated.

"It is the last frontier they try to conquer," Bukhari explained.

&nbsp;Silence dissent&nbsp;

Journalist Rizwan-ur-Rehman Razi was among the people targeted. He was arrested in February at home in the eastern city of Lahore for publishing "defamatory and obnoxious" content against the state.

A few days earlier, he had criticised extra-judicial executions allegedly committed by the security forces, according to a copy of his tweets seen by AFP.

Released after two nights, he has not tweeted since, and his posts have been deleted.

The net cast by the crackdown is a wide one, with Shahzad Ahmad, director of the digital security NGO Bytes for All, pointing to the harassment of civil rights activists, the political opposition, and bloggers.

According to Annie Zaman, an expert on cyber-censorship in Pakistan, this is made possible by an all-encompassing 2016 law that prohibits online posts that are deemed to compromise state security or offend anything from "the glory of Islam" to non-defined notions of "decency and morality".

"Because this law is vague, it gave more space to the authorities to censor online," Zaman said.

Offenders can face up to 14 years in prison.

The military signalled its involvement in the campaign as early as June last year, when spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor boasted of the capacity to monitor social media accounts during a televised press conference.

In a clear warning, Ghafoor briefly showed an image of what appeared to be specific Twitter handles and names.

Facebook and Twitter transparency reports show the crackdown was already well underway last year, with a huge spike in requests by the Pakistani government seeking to censor online activity.

Facebook restricted more content in Pakistan than in any other country in the first six months of 2018, according to its transparency figures from that time period, which are the most recently available.

The social media giant said it restricted the availability of 2,203 pieces of content in total -- a seven-fold jump from the previous six months.

All but 87 of the items had been reported by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority "as allegedly violating local laws prohibiting blasphemy, anti-judiciary content, and condemnation of the country's independence," it said.

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority did not respond to requests for comment.

&nbsp;'Overstepping boundaries'&nbsp;

Twitter figures for the same time period showed a similar trend, with requests to remove content from 3,004 accounts in Pakistan compared to 674 in the second half of 2017.

A Twitter spokesman said the vast majority of the requests had come from the government and stressed that the company had acquiesced to none of them.

"The authorities are no longer hiding their agenda (or policy) to silence internet-mediated dissent," said Rabia Mehmood, a researcher for Amnesty International.

"While the current censorship is exceptionally intense, over the years, one message has been consistent that criticism of policies of the Pakistan military will not be tolerated."

Even those posting on social media from overseas have found themselves targeted.

Twitter routinely sends out a notice to users notifying them when the company receives complaints that their posts have violated a country's laws.

AFP has found dozens of users who received such a message warning they had violated Pakistani laws -- including 11 who had tweeted from beyond Pakistan's borders, in countries such as Australia, the US and Canada.

The requests represent "a government censor overstepping jurisdiction boundaries", said Jillian York, an expert at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an American NGO.

Threats, arrests, blocked accounts and restricted posts -- Big Brother is watching more closely than ever in Pakistan as authorities accelerate efforts to censor social networks, further reducing an already shrunken space for dissent.

Threats, arrests, blocked accounts and restricted posts -- Big Brother is watching more closely than ever in Pakistan as authorities accelerate efforts to censor social networks, further reducing an already shrunken space for dissent. In the past 18 months, a slew of journalists, activists, and government opponents –- both at home and overseas -- have faced intimidation or the threat of legal action for their online posts. Censorship is already rife among Pakistan's mainstream media, with the Committee to Protect Journalists noting last year that the military had "quietly but effectively" imposed strict limits on the scope of general news reporting. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were regarded as the last holdouts of dissenting voices, but now that has changed. In February, authorities announced the creation of a new enforcement arm to root out social media users accused of spreading "hate speech and violence" as part of the crackdown. Gul Bukhari, a columnist and sometime government critic who was briefly abducted by unidentified men last year, said the assault on social media was carefully organised and coordinated. "It is the last frontier they try to conquer," Bukhari explained. Silence dissent Journalist Rizwan-ur-Rehman Razi was among the people targeted. He was arrested in February at home in the eastern city of Lahore for publishing "defamatory and obnoxious" content against the state. A few days earlier, he had criticised extra-judicial executions allegedly committed by the security forces, according to a copy of his tweets seen by AFP. Released after two nights, he has not tweeted since, and his posts have been deleted. The net cast by the crackdown is a wide one, with Shahzad Ahmad, director of the digital security NGO Bytes for All, pointing to the harassment of civil rights activists, the political opposition, and bloggers. According to Annie Zaman, an expert on cyber-censorship in Pakistan, this is made possible by an all-encompassing 2016 law that prohibits online posts that are deemed to compromise state security or offend anything from "the glory of Islam" to non-defined notions of "decency and morality". "Because this law is vague, it gave more space to the authorities to censor online," Zaman said. Offenders can face up to 14 years in prison. The military signalled its involvement in the campaign as early as June last year, when spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor boasted of the capacity to monitor social media accounts during a televised press conference. In a clear warning, Ghafoor briefly showed an image of what appeared to be specific Twitter handles and names. Facebook and Twitter transparency reports show the crackdown was already well underway last year, with a huge spike in requests by the Pakistani government seeking to censor online activity. Facebook restricted more content in Pakistan than in any other country in the first six months of 2018, according to its transparency figures from that time period, which are the most recently available. The social media giant said it restricted the availability of 2,203 pieces of content in total -- a seven-fold jump from the previous six months. All but 87 of the items had been reported by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority "as allegedly violating local laws prohibiting blasphemy, anti-judiciary content, and condemnation of the country's independence," it said. The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority did not respond to requests for comment. 'Overstepping boundaries' Twitter figures for the same time period showed a similar trend, with requests to remove content from 3,004 accounts in Pakistan compared to 674 in the second half of 2017. A Twitter spokesman said the vast majority of the requests had come from the government and stressed that the company had acquiesced to none of them. "The authorities are no longer hiding their agenda (or policy) to silence internet-mediated dissent," said Rabia Mehmood, a researcher for Amnesty International. "While the current censorship is exceptionally intense, over the years, one message has been consistent that criticism of policies of the Pakistan military will not be tolerated." Even those posting on social media from overseas have found themselves targeted. Twitter routinely sends out a notice to users notifying them when the company receives complaints that their posts have violated a country's laws. AFP has found dozens of users who received such a message warning they had violated Pakistani laws -- including 11 who had tweeted from beyond Pakistan's borders, in countries such as Australia, the US and Canada. The requests represent "a government censor overstepping jurisdiction boundaries", said Jillian York, an expert at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an American NGO.

Social networks under intense surveillance in Pakistan

Pakistani authorities Wednesday vowed to carry out a "massive" crackdown targeting <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-using-social-media-to-radicalise-kashmiri-youths-jk-police-chief-193786">hate speech and extremism on social media,</a> as a minister boasted arrests have already been made.&nbsp;

Officials in Pakistan are frequently accused of muzzling the media and targeting individuals critical of the country’s powerful military establishment and have blocked hundreds of websites and social media accounts over the years.

Information minister Fawad Chaudhry announced the government was setting up a new enforcement arm to regulate social media during a speech in the capital Islamabad.

"We made some arrests last week and by the will of Allah we are launching a massive crackdown against social media users spreading hate speech and violence," he said.

Self-censorship in the South Asia nation is widely believed to be rife at traditional news outlets.

"Our problem is that digital media is overtaking formal media so it is important for us to regulate this," Chaudhry added, saying: "Informal media is a greater problem than formal media.”

The announcement comes days after authorities arrested a journalist for allegedly posting defamatory content on social media.&nbsp;

And on Tuesday an opinion piece in the International New York Times criticising Pakistan's powerful army was censored by its local publisher and replaced by a blank space.

Activists and bloggers frequently report receiving warnings from Facebook and Twitter for posting unlawful content.

Local media also complained about pressure in the run-up to a general election in July to self-censor in favour of the eventual victor, cricketer-turned-prime-minister Imran Khan.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said the army had "quietly but effectively, set restrictions on reporting" in a report released September last year.

Pakistani authorities Wednesday vowed to carry out a "massive" crackdown targeting hate speech and extremism on social media, as a minister boasted arrests have already been made.

Pakistani authorities Wednesday vowed to carry out a "massive" crackdown targeting hate speech and extremism on social media, as a minister boasted arrests have already been made. Officials in Pakistan are frequently accused of muzzling the media and targeting individuals critical of the country’s powerful military establishment and have blocked hundreds of websites and social media accounts over the years. Information minister Fawad Chaudhry announced the government was setting up a new enforcement arm to regulate social media during a speech in the capital Islamabad. "We made some arrests last week and by the will of Allah we are launching a massive crackdown against social media users spreading hate speech and violence," he said. Self-censorship in the South Asia nation is widely believed to be rife at traditional news outlets. "Our problem is that digital media is overtaking formal media so it is important for us to regulate this," Chaudhry added, saying: "Informal media is a greater problem than formal media.” The announcement comes days after authorities arrested a journalist for allegedly posting defamatory content on social media. And on Tuesday an opinion piece in the International New York Times criticising Pakistan's powerful army was censored by its local publisher and replaced by a blank space. Activists and bloggers frequently report receiving warnings from Facebook and Twitter for posting unlawful content. Local media also complained about pressure in the run-up to a general election in July to self-censor in favour of the eventual victor, cricketer-turned-prime-minister Imran Khan. The Committee to Protect Journalists said the army had "quietly but effectively, set restrictions on reporting" in a report released September last year.

Pakistan announces 'massive' social media crackdown

France's smart regulation of Facebook to combat hate speech

Facebook will allow French regulators to "embed" inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.

From January, Macron's administration will send a small team of senior civil servants to the company for six months to verify Facebook's goodwill and determine whether its checks on racist, sexist or hate-fuelled speech could be improved.

"It's a first," Macron told the annual Internet Governance Forum in Paris. "I'm delighted by this very innovative experimental approach," he said. "It's an experiment, but a very important first step in my view."

The trial project is an example of what Macron has called "smart regulation", something he wants to extend to other tech leaders such as Google, Apple and Amazon.<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K2BX9W3Ygaw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The move follows a meeting with Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg in May, when Macron invited the CEOs of some of the biggest tech firms to Paris, telling them they should work for the common good.

The officials may be seconded from the telecoms regulator and the interior and justice ministries, a government source said. Facebook said the selection was up to the French presidency.

It is unclear whether the group will have access to highly-sensitive material such as Facebook's algorithms or codes to remove hate speech. It could travel to Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin and global base in Menlo Park, California if necessary, the company said.

"The best way to ensure that any regulation is smart and works for people is by governments, regulators and businesses working together to learn from each other and explore ideas," Nick Clegg, the former British deputy prime minister who is now head of Facebook's global affairs, said in a statement.

France's approach to hate speech has contrasted sharply with Germany, Europe's leading advocate of privacy.

Since January, Berlin has required sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros ($56 million). That has led to accusations of censorship.

France's use of embedded regulators is modelled on what happens in its banking and nuclear industries.

"(Tech companies) now have the choice between something that is smart but intrusive and regulation that is wicked and plain stupid," a French official said.

Facebook will allow French regulators to "embed" inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.

Facebook will allow French regulators to "embed" inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday. From January, Macron's administration will send a small team of senior civil servants to the company for six months to verify Facebook's goodwill and determine whether its checks on racist, sexist or hate-fuelled speech could be improved. "It's a first," Macron told the annual Internet Governance Forum in Paris. "I'm delighted by this very innovative experimental approach," he said. "It's an experiment, but a very important first step in my view." The trial project is an example of what Macron has called "smart regulation", something he wants to extend to other tech leaders such as Google, Apple and Amazon. The move follows a meeting with Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg in May, when Macron invited the CEOs of some of the biggest tech firms to Paris, telling them they should work for the common good. The officials may be seconded from the telecoms regulator and the interior and justice ministries, a government source said. Facebook said the selection was up to the French presidency. It is unclear whether the group will have access to highly-sensitive material such as Facebook's algorithms or codes to remove hate speech. It could travel to Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin and global base in Menlo Park, California if necessary, the company said. "The best way to ensure that any regulation is smart and works for people is by governments, regulators and businesses working together to learn from each other and explore ideas," Nick Clegg, the former British deputy prime minister who is now head of Facebook's global affairs, said in a statement. France's approach to hate speech has contrasted sharply with Germany, Europe's leading advocate of privacy. Since January, Berlin has required sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros ($56 million). That has led to accusations of censorship. France's use of embedded regulators is modelled on what happens in its banking and nuclear industries. "(Tech companies) now have the choice between something that is smart but intrusive and regulation that is wicked and plain stupid," a French official said.

Watch: France to 'embed' regulators at Facebook to combat hate speech

Myanmar civil society groups on Wednesday welcomed a commitment by Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to increase efforts to curb messages inciting violence, but urged the social media giant to deploy more resources in the Southeast Asian country.&nbsp;

Zuckerberg said on Tuesday his company would step up efforts to block hate messages in Myanmar as he faced questioning by the US&nbsp;Congress about electoral interference and hate speech on the platform.

Facebook has been accused by human rights advocates of not doing enough to weed out hate messages on its social-media network in Myanmar, where it has become a near-ubiquitous communications tool following the opening up of the economy.&nbsp;

"This is a historic commitment from Facebook to a 24-hour review time, and one we have been begging for," said Yangon-based social media analyst Victoire Rio, of Zuckerberg's commitment to remove posts that may spur violence.&nbsp;

"It is still unclear how they intend to demonstrate that they are meeting these targets...We will continue to monitor them," said Rio, who was involved in an email exchange between Zuckerberg and several Myanmar civil society groups on Facebook's effectiveness in detecting and curbing hate speech.&nbsp;

Nearly 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar's Rakhine state and crossed into Bangladesh since insurgent attacks sparked a security crackdown last August.

The United Nations and the United States described the situation as ethnic cleansing, an accusation that Myanmar denies.&nbsp;

"What's happening in Myanmar is a terrible tragedy, and we need to do more," Zuckerberg said during a 5-hour joint hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee.

United Nations officials investigating a possible genocide in Myanmar said last month that Facebook had been a source of anti-Rohingya propaganda.

Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN&nbsp;Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, said in March that social media had played a "determining role" in Myanmar.

"It has ... substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict ... within the public. Hate speech is certainly of course a part of that. As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media," he said.&nbsp;

Zuckerberg said Facebook was hiring dozens of more Burmese-language speakers to remove threatening content.

"It's hard to do it without people who speak the local language, and we need to ramp up our effort there dramatically," he said, adding that Facebook was also asking civil society groups to help it identify figures who should be banned from the network.

He said a Facebook team would also make undisclosed product changes in Myanmar and other countries where ethnic violence was a problem.

But Jes Petersen, chief executive of Yangon-based Phandeeyar, which helped Facebook translate its Burmese-language community standards, said Zuckerberg's commitment would not be enough for a country with nearly 30 million users.&nbsp;

"It is not even close. It will be interesting to see how Facebook meet their 24-hour commitment here - but a mammoth expansion of Burmese-speaking staff is going to be needed."

Zuckerberg said a Facebook team would also make undisclosed product changes in Myanmar

Myanmar civil society groups on Wednesday welcomed a commitment by Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to increase efforts to curb messages inciting violence, but urged the social media giant to deploy more resources in the Southeast Asian country. Zuckerberg said on Tuesday his company would step up efforts to block hate messages in Myanmar as he faced questioning by the US Congress about electoral interference and hate speech on the platform. Facebook has been accused by human rights advocates of not doing enough to weed out hate messages on its social-media network in Myanmar, where it has become a near-ubiquitous communications tool following the opening up of the economy. "This is a historic commitment from Facebook to a 24-hour review time, and one we have been begging for," said Yangon-based social media analyst Victoire Rio, of Zuckerberg's commitment to remove posts that may spur violence. "It is still unclear how they intend to demonstrate that they are meeting these targets...We will continue to monitor them," said Rio, who was involved in an email exchange between Zuckerberg and several Myanmar civil society groups on Facebook's effectiveness in detecting and curbing hate speech. Nearly 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar's Rakhine state and crossed into Bangladesh since insurgent attacks sparked a security crackdown last August. The United Nations and the United States described the situation as ethnic cleansing, an accusation that Myanmar denies. "What's happening in Myanmar is a terrible tragedy, and we need to do more," Zuckerberg said during a 5-hour joint hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee. United Nations officials investigating a possible genocide in Myanmar said last month that Facebook had been a source of anti-Rohingya propaganda. Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, said in March that social media had played a "determining role" in Myanmar. "It has ... substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict ... within the public. Hate speech is certainly of course a part of that. As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media," he said. Zuckerberg said Facebook was hiring dozens of more Burmese-language speakers to remove threatening content. "It's hard to do it without people who speak the local language, and we need to ramp up our effort there dramatically," he said, adding that Facebook was also asking civil society groups to help it identify figures who should be banned from the network. He said a Facebook team would also make undisclosed product changes in Myanmar and other countries where ethnic violence was a problem. But Jes Petersen, chief executive of Yangon-based Phandeeyar, which helped Facebook translate its Burmese-language community standards, said Zuckerberg's commitment would not be enough for a country with nearly 30 million users. "It is not even close. It will be interesting to see how Facebook meet their 24-hour commitment here - but a mammoth expansion of Burmese-speaking staff is going to be needed."

Myanmar activists welcome Zuckerberg's vows to block hate speech on Facebook

A UN&nbsprights watchdog called on Hungary on Thursday to crack down on hate speech by politicians against Roma, Muslims and other minorities, and to repeal a law allowing migrants to be deported without a chance to seek asylum.

It urged the nationalist government to reject draft laws known as the "Stop-Soros Package" that would empower the interior minister to ban non-governmental organisations that support migration and pose a "national security risk".

The government says the bill is meant to deter illegal immigration that Prime Minister Viktor Orban says is eroding European stability and has been stoked in part by Hungarian-born U.S. financier George Soros. It says its policies are to ensure Hungarians can live in safety.

Orban, seeking a third consecutive term on Sunday, has campaigned on a strong anti-migration message - although a UN&nbsppanel expert said the timing of the watchdog's comments, at the end of a four-week meeting, was not directed at voters.

The UN&nbspHuman Rights Committee voiced concern at "hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, notably, Roma, Muslim, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns".

The panel issued its findings and recommendations after its 18 independent experts reviewed Hungary's record on upholding civil and political rights.

"The concern we saw in Hungary is that sometimes hate speech is accompanied by hate crimes which are directed against minorities and against migrants," Yuval Shany, the panel vice-chair, told Reuters TV.

Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto defended Hungary's policies, telling the UN&nbsppanel last month: "First and foremost, it is a firm conviction of the government that the Hungarian people have the right to live a life in security, without fear of terrorist atrocities."

In 2015, the central European country had a "sad experience" when some 400,000 migrants passed through on their way to Western Europe, "ignoring all rules", he said.

The UN&nbsppanel also decried a Hungarian law adopted a year ago that allows for automatically removing all asylum applicants to transit zones for indefinite confinement.

People should be allowed freedom of movement while their individual asylum claims are examined to see whether they are refugees fleeing war or persecution, the committee said.

The panel added that Hungary should repeal a June 2016 law that enables police to summarily expel anyone entering irregularly.

The committee also voiced concern at the "prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes" and how "high-ranking officials have nurtured conspiracy theories relating to George Soros".

Orban has waged a billboard and media campaign asserting that Soros would "settle millions from Africa and the Middle East", among other allegations.

Soros, who is Jewish, has rejected the campaign against him as "distortions and lies" meant to create a false external enemy.

UN rights watchdog urged the nationalist government to reject draft laws known as the "Stop-Soros Package" that would empower the interior minister to ban non-governmental organisations that support migration and pose a 'national security risk'

A UN&nbsprights watchdog called on Hungary on Thursday to crack down on hate speech by politicians against Roma, Muslims and other minorities, and to repeal a law allowing migrants to be deported without a chance to seek asylum. It urged the nationalist government to reject draft laws known as the "Stop-Soros Package" that would empower the interior minister to ban non-governmental organisations that support migration and pose a "national security risk". The government says the bill is meant to deter illegal immigration that Prime Minister Viktor Orban says is eroding European stability and has been stoked in part by Hungarian-born U.S. financier George Soros. It says its policies are to ensure Hungarians can live in safety. Orban, seeking a third consecutive term on Sunday, has campaigned on a strong anti-migration message - although a UN&nbsppanel expert said the timing of the watchdog's comments, at the end of a four-week meeting, was not directed at voters. The UN&nbspHuman Rights Committee voiced concern at "hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, notably, Roma, Muslim, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns". The panel issued its findings and recommendations after its 18 independent experts reviewed Hungary's record on upholding civil and political rights. "The concern we saw in Hungary is that sometimes hate speech is accompanied by hate crimes which are directed against minorities and against migrants," Yuval Shany, the panel vice-chair, told Reuters TV. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto defended Hungary's policies, telling the UN&nbsppanel last month: "First and foremost, it is a firm conviction of the government that the Hungarian people have the right to live a life in security, without fear of terrorist atrocities." In 2015, the central European country had a "sad experience" when some 400,000 migrants passed through on their way to Western Europe, "ignoring all rules", he said. The UN&nbsppanel also decried a Hungarian law adopted a year ago that allows for automatically removing all asylum applicants to transit zones for indefinite confinement. People should be allowed freedom of movement while their individual asylum claims are examined to see whether they are refugees fleeing war or persecution, the committee said. The panel added that Hungary should repeal a June 2016 law that enables police to summarily expel anyone entering irregularly. The committee also voiced concern at the "prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes" and how "high-ranking officials have nurtured conspiracy theories relating to George Soros". Orban has waged a billboard and media campaign asserting that Soros would "settle millions from Africa and the Middle East", among other allegations. Soros, who is Jewish, has rejected the campaign against him as "distortions and lies" meant to create a false external enemy.

UN rights watchdog urges Hungary to halt hate speech, protect refugees

Sri Lanka has lifted a week-long ban on Facebook after the tech giant agreed to step up efforts to remove hate speech posted on its platform, President Maithripala Sirisena said Thursday.

Sirisena said he ordered authorities to remove the block, imposed across the country during anti-Muslim riots last week that left three people dead after police said the social network was being used to fuel violence.

&quot;My secretary has discussed with officials of Facebook, who have agreed that its platform will not be used for spreading hate speech and inciting violence,&quot; the president, who is currently touring Japan, said on Twitter.

Sirisena did not elaborate on what, if any, concrete commitments Facebook had made and there was no immediate comment from the social media giant. But on Wednesday the company said it was responding to Sri Lanka&#39;s concerns over the incendiary material.

A state of emergency was declared and internet services suspended entirely in Kandy, the worst-hit central district, for several days last week as authorities sought to disrupt the riots, in which more than 200 Muslim-owned businesses and homes were destroyed.

Island-wide restrictions on image and video sharing on messaging apps WhatsApp and Viber were lifted on Wednesday.

Ministers had said Facebook would remain banned unless it assured Sri Lanka it would take quicker action over hate speech in future.

Censorship and media oppression were used widely by strongman president Mahinda Rajapakse, who for a decade in power ordered local internet providers to block anti-government sentiment online.

His successor President Maithripala Sirisena was elected in 2015 promising an end to draconian government restrictions, but some websites critical of the government were blocked even before the ban on Facebook.

A week-long ban on Facebook lifted after the tech giant agreed to step up efforts to remove hate speech posted on its platform

Sri Lanka has lifted a week-long ban on Facebook after the tech giant agreed to step up efforts to remove hate speech posted on its platform, President Maithripala Sirisena said Thursday. Sirisena said he ordered authorities to remove the block, imposed across the country during anti-Muslim riots last week that left three people dead after police said the social network was being used to fuel violence. "My secretary has discussed with officials of Facebook, who have agreed that its platform will not be used for spreading hate speech and inciting violence," the president, who is currently touring Japan, said on Twitter. Sirisena did not elaborate on what, if any, concrete commitments Facebook had made and there was no immediate comment from the social media giant. But on Wednesday the company said it was responding to Sri Lanka's concerns over the incendiary material. A state of emergency was declared and internet services suspended entirely in Kandy, the worst-hit central district, for several days last week as authorities sought to disrupt the riots, in which more than 200 Muslim-owned businesses and homes were destroyed. Island-wide restrictions on image and video sharing on messaging apps WhatsApp and Viber were lifted on Wednesday. Ministers had said Facebook would remain banned unless it assured Sri Lanka it would take quicker action over hate speech in future. Censorship and media oppression were used widely by strongman president Mahinda Rajapakse, who for a decade in power ordered local internet providers to block anti-government sentiment online. His successor President Maithripala Sirisena was elected in 2015 promising an end to draconian government restrictions, but some websites critical of the government were blocked even before the ban on Facebook.

Sri Lanka lifts Facebook ban after hate speech assurance

UN human rights investigators <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/un-to-seek-1billion-for-rohingya-refugee-effort-in-bangladesh-35410">have held Facebook responsible</a> for the spread of hate speech in the large-scale violence against Rohingyas in Myanmar.

&quot;It has ... substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict, if you will, within the public. Hate speech is certainly, of course, a part of that,&quot; Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar said.

&quot;As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media,&quot; he added.

Another UN investigator Yanghee Lee said that Facebook played a key role in public discourse in Myanmar and it was widely used by the government to convey information.

&quot;It was used to convey public messages but we know that the ultra-nationalist Buddhists have their own Facebooks and are really inciting a lot of violence and a lot of hatred against the Rohingya or other ethnic minorities,&quot; she said.

&quot;I&rsquo;m afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it originally intended,&quot; she observed.

&nbsp;

UN investigator Yanghee Lee said that Facebook played a key role in public discourse in Myanmar

UN human rights investigators have held Facebook responsible for the spread of hate speech in the large-scale violence against Rohingyas in Myanmar. "It has ... substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict, if you will, within the public. Hate speech is certainly, of course, a part of that," Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar said. "As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media," he added. Another UN investigator Yanghee Lee said that Facebook played a key role in public discourse in Myanmar and it was widely used by the government to convey information. "It was used to convey public messages but we know that the ultra-nationalist Buddhists have their own Facebooks and are really inciting a lot of violence and a lot of hatred against the Rohingya or other ethnic minorities," she said. "I’m afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it originally intended," she observed.

Facebook turned into a beast, ultra-nationalist Buddhists using it to spread hatred against Rohingyas: UN

Under Hitler, Germany experienced the consequences of a nation caving into propaganda and hate speech. This may explain its government&rsquo;s urgency to enact a new law, known as the &ldquo;Facebook Act,&rdquo; in response to the recent alarming rise of hate speech online.

Canada is experiencing a similar rise.

Media marketing company Cision documented a six-fold rise - that&rsquo;s a 600 per cent increase - in the amount of intolerant and hate speech in social media postings by Canadians between November 2015 and November 2016. Hashtags such as #banmuslims, #siegheil, #whitegenocide and #whitepower were widely used on popular social media platforms such as Twitter.

Some analysts blame Trump. But Canadian media outlets shouldn&rsquo;t be too smug about their adherence to the practice of fair and balanced journalism.

A group of scholars at Ryerson University conducted a critical analysis of how the Canadian media covered the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Canada between September 2015 and April 2016. They found several news outlets played a major role in reinforcing the negative image of Syrian refugees and Muslims in the public eye.

The refugees were subject to &quot;othering,&quot; the practice of depicting nonwhite cultures as &quot;alien,&quot; and highlighting differences rather than shared values or interests. The new arrivals from Syria were stereotyped, criminalised (especially men) and perceived as passive, lacking agency, vulnerable, needy and a drain on government resources. Male Syrian refugees were viewed as security threats and female Syrian refugees as voiceless, oppressed and desperate.

My research study investigates the way youth view their role in society as it relates to refugees, and how they regard and interpret online propaganda.

The $74 million question

The European Commission recently announced a new set of guidelines and principles for online platforms to prevent content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism, and Twitter began implementing its new rules for fighting hate on Nov. 1.

Should Canada follow in Germany&rsquo;s footsteps and enact a law that would pressure social networks to remove offensive posts within 24 hours or risk fines of up to $74 million for failing to comply? Adopting new regulations forcing social media platforms to respond swiftly could be an effective intervention to halt the spread of hate speech online. However, it could also prove to be challenging, as moderators wade into complex language and often get it wrong. Ultimately, we need to adopt a systematic response to hateful and dangerous rhetoric online.

The German social media law has been the subject of criticism since it was announced. Some critics say the law is too broad while others warn it could be the executioner of free speech. The thin line between hate speech and free speech is the focus of many concerned Canadians.

In Canada, hate speech is addressed in the recently updated Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). However, the applicability of this law to online hate speech is a frequent subject of debate that produces conflicting conclusions. In particular, the Defenses section of the code outlines cases where the proponents of hate speech could be exempted.

Distinguishing hate speech from fear speech - speech originating from fear and masked with terms and expressions usually associated with hate - is by itself a great challenge. Motion 103 (M-103), which condemns Islamophobia in Canada, and was passed in the House of Commons this Spring, is perceived by some Canadians to be suppressing free speech.

How to stop hate online?

Extremist parties, politicians and their fans have all successfully taken advantage of social media platforms to spread messages filled with racism and intolerance - even incitement to radical views.

Right-wing activists and the movements they espouse now total more than 100 organised groups in Canada. They are more visible and also better connected than ever before.

Stopping hate speech and extremist views on social media may be an impossible mission.

Yet, a majority of Canadians get their news about politics through social media giants such as Facebook. Facebook says 84 per cent of young Canadians actively use the social media platform.

&quot;The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it,&quot; said Joseph Goebbels, Hitler&rsquo;s minister of propaganda and national enlightenment.

According to the Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication, created in 1948 by mathematician and electronic engineer Claude Elwood Shannon and scientist Warren Weaver, every communication includes an information source, a message, a transmitter, a receiver, a destination and a noise source.

If we apply the communication model to online hate speech, we can identify the information sources as the propagandists, including extremist parties. They craft a simple, direct message such as &ldquo;Muslims are terrorists&rdquo; and transmit it through social media posts.

The destination is the audience the propagandists are focused on manipulating. This audience belongs to a whole spectrum, ranging from supporters of the idea to an audience that is outraged by it.

The receiver is the system used by the audience to decode the message and interpret it. The noise source includes the laws, acts, filtering and flagging strategies put in place to prevent the message from reaching the destination.

So far, it has been proven that the sender of hate speech is unstoppable and the noise source lacks efficiency since hate speech not only persists but also is on the rise.

Therefore, we must shift our tactics. We could, for example, focus on the receiver and the destination of the hate-filled message. We could teach the audience - youth in particular - how to withstand digital hate speech propaganda.

Youth need to be part of the solution

Conversations that characterise millennials as passive consumers of news with little and incidental exposure to world events could not be more wrong. A study conducted by the Media Insight Project in 2015 found youth between the age of 18 and 24 are &quot;anything but &#39;newsless&#39;&quot; passive or uninterested in civic issues.

Instead, they consume news and information in strikingly different ways than previous generations and their paths &quot;to discovery are more nuanced and varied than some may have imagined&quot;.&nbsp;Social media plays a large role in their news consumption.

Many youths are critical of media content and their choice of the information and the news they read online is far from random. They often see or experience direct or indirect racial discrimination online or witness unproductive, uncivil or disturbing Facebook discussions.

They recognise the agendas and algorithms behind the posts that pop up on their walls, and they hunger for an influential voice that would disrupt the discourses about issues that affect their lives.

Yet, fearing a backlash, a majority of youth choose to remain bystanders in an era where their social media presence and skills are needed the most. They remain &quot;power users (frequent users),&quot; instead of &quot;powerful users (influential users).&quot;

Youth could be our best candidates to be these agents of change, given their familiarity with social media. For this to happen, young people need to develop civic online reasoning and identify ways to leverage the power of social media for &quot;greater control, hate speech and ugly online conversations around Syrian refugees are mainly orchestrated to spread fear among people who might otherwise be members of actual or prospective welcoming communities. A campaign to counter propaganda, led by agents of change, is important to counterbalance the negative influence and allow host societies to make informed choices.voice and influence over issues that matter most in their lives.&quot;

They need to understand where their political tolerance and intolerance comes from and understand the concerns, emotions and values that generate public attitudes.

Many argue that education is not enough. However, equipping and empowering youth to disrupt the messaging transmitted by radical extremists or parties with racist agendas start with the pedagogy of understanding oneself.

The power of self-knowledge

My research study involved 126 in-depth interviews with 42 youth between 18 and 24 years old from Canada, the U.K., France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Greece and Lebanon. During the interviews, I engaged these young participants in the process of learning about themselves using tools I adapted from Personal Construct Psychology.

I wanted to understand how they viewed their role in the integration and inclusion of refugees in their societies, in a context where the image of refugees was deeply influenced by social media, especially after terror attacks.

I also wanted to discover what knowledge and skills they developed through the process of understanding themselves by identifying their construct systems - the &quot;lenses&quot; they used when decoding digital propaganda targeting sensitive and controversial issues such as the Syrian refugee crisis.

Through our discussions, each of these 42 young people had an &quot;aha moment.&quot;

Regardless of their geographical locations or the ways they experienced the refugee crisis and the recent terror attacks, they had the same sudden realisation. Not only could they control how social media influenced them, but they also had a role to play in shaping the image of refugees through what they shared online.

They became critical of media content. They developed empathy towards both refugees and people who rejected newcomers. They moved from passive bystanders to became confident agents of change, ready to play a leadership role in counterbalancing the digital hate speech propaganda against refugees.

To eradicate digital hate speech propaganda, we need to prevent propagandists from reaching their objectives.

Laws such as Germany&rsquo;s &quot;Facebook Act&quot; constitute one piece of the solution. The other key is to make sure audiences are trained to better withstand manipulation.

Our youth, once equipped and empowered, are our best candidates to disrupt the messages spread by propagandists and to pursue the mission of putting a stop to hate speech.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-trump-effect-in-canada-a-600-per-cent-increase-in-online-hate-speech-86026" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

Anti-hate laws and self-awareness education for audiences is essential to eradicate digital hate speech propaganda

Under Hitler, Germany experienced the consequences of a nation caving into propaganda and hate speech. This may explain its government’s urgency to enact a new law, known as the “Facebook Act,” in response to the recent alarming rise of hate speech online. Canada is experiencing a similar rise. Media marketing company Cision documented a six-fold rise - that’s a 600 per cent increase - in the amount of intolerant and hate speech in social media postings by Canadians between November 2015 and November 2016. Hashtags such as #banmuslims, #siegheil, #whitegenocide and #whitepower were widely used on popular social media platforms such as Twitter. Some analysts blame Trump. But Canadian media outlets shouldn’t be too smug about their adherence to the practice of fair and balanced journalism. A group of scholars at Ryerson University conducted a critical analysis of how the Canadian media covered the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Canada between September 2015 and April 2016. They found several news outlets played a major role in reinforcing the negative image of Syrian refugees and Muslims in the public eye. The refugees were subject to "othering," the practice of depicting nonwhite cultures as "alien," and highlighting differences rather than shared values or interests. The new arrivals from Syria were stereotyped, criminalised (especially men) and perceived as passive, lacking agency, vulnerable, needy and a drain on government resources. Male Syrian refugees were viewed as security threats and female Syrian refugees as voiceless, oppressed and desperate. My research study investigates the way youth view their role in society as it relates to refugees, and how they regard and interpret online propaganda. The $74 million question The European Commission recently announced a new set of guidelines and principles for online platforms to prevent content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism, and Twitter began implementing its new rules for fighting hate on Nov. 1. Should Canada follow in Germany’s footsteps and enact a law that would pressure social networks to remove offensive posts within 24 hours or risk fines of up to $74 million for failing to comply? Adopting new regulations forcing social media platforms to respond swiftly could be an effective intervention to halt the spread of hate speech online. However, it could also prove to be challenging, as moderators wade into complex language and often get it wrong. Ultimately, we need to adopt a systematic response to hateful and dangerous rhetoric online. The German social media law has been the subject of criticism since it was announced. Some critics say the law is too broad while others warn it could be the executioner of free speech. The thin line between hate speech and free speech is the focus of many concerned Canadians. In Canada, hate speech is addressed in the recently updated Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). However, the applicability of this law to online hate speech is a frequent subject of debate that produces conflicting conclusions. In particular, the Defenses section of the code outlines cases where the proponents of hate speech could be exempted. Distinguishing hate speech from fear speech - speech originating from fear and masked with terms and expressions usually associated with hate - is by itself a great challenge. Motion 103 (M-103), which condemns Islamophobia in Canada, and was passed in the House of Commons this Spring, is perceived by some Canadians to be suppressing free speech. How to stop hate online? Extremist parties, politicians and their fans have all successfully taken advantage of social media platforms to spread messages filled with racism and intolerance - even incitement to radical views. Right-wing activists and the movements they espouse now total more than 100 organised groups in Canada. They are more visible and also better connected than ever before. Stopping hate speech and extremist views on social media may be an impossible mission. Yet, a majority of Canadians get their news about politics through social media giants such as Facebook. Facebook says 84 per cent of young Canadians actively use the social media platform. "The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it," said Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda and national enlightenment. According to the Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication, created in 1948 by mathematician and electronic engineer Claude Elwood Shannon and scientist Warren Weaver, every communication includes an information source, a message, a transmitter, a receiver, a destination and a noise source. If we apply the communication model to online hate speech, we can identify the information sources as the propagandists, including extremist parties. They craft a simple, direct message such as “Muslims are terrorists” and transmit it through social media posts. The destination is the audience the propagandists are focused on manipulating. This audience belongs to a whole spectrum, ranging from supporters of the idea to an audience that is outraged by it. The receiver is the system used by the audience to decode the message and interpret it. The noise source includes the laws, acts, filtering and flagging strategies put in place to prevent the message from reaching the destination. So far, it has been proven that the sender of hate speech is unstoppable and the noise source lacks efficiency since hate speech not only persists but also is on the rise. Therefore, we must shift our tactics. We could, for example, focus on the receiver and the destination of the hate-filled message. We could teach the audience - youth in particular - how to withstand digital hate speech propaganda. Youth need to be part of the solution Conversations that characterise millennials as passive consumers of news with little and incidental exposure to world events could not be more wrong. A study conducted by the Media Insight Project in 2015 found youth between the age of 18 and 24 are "anything but 'newsless'" passive or uninterested in civic issues. Instead, they consume news and information in strikingly different ways than previous generations and their paths "to discovery are more nuanced and varied than some may have imagined". Social media plays a large role in their news consumption. Many youths are critical of media content and their choice of the information and the news they read online is far from random. They often see or experience direct or indirect racial discrimination online or witness unproductive, uncivil or disturbing Facebook discussions. They recognise the agendas and algorithms behind the posts that pop up on their walls, and they hunger for an influential voice that would disrupt the discourses about issues that affect their lives. Yet, fearing a backlash, a majority of youth choose to remain bystanders in an era where their social media presence and skills are needed the most. They remain "power users (frequent users)," instead of "powerful users (influential users)." Youth could be our best candidates to be these agents of change, given their familiarity with social media. For this to happen, young people need to develop civic online reasoning and identify ways to leverage the power of social media for "greater control, hate speech and ugly online conversations around Syrian refugees are mainly orchestrated to spread fear among people who might otherwise be members of actual or prospective welcoming communities. A campaign to counter propaganda, led by agents of change, is important to counterbalance the negative influence and allow host societies to make informed choices.voice and influence over issues that matter most in their lives." They need to understand where their political tolerance and intolerance comes from and understand the concerns, emotions and values that generate public attitudes. Many argue that education is not enough. However, equipping and empowering youth to disrupt the messaging transmitted by radical extremists or parties with racist agendas start with the pedagogy of understanding oneself. The power of self-knowledge My research study involved 126 in-depth interviews with 42 youth between 18 and 24 years old from Canada, the U.K., France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Greece and Lebanon. During the interviews, I engaged these young participants in the process of learning about themselves using tools I adapted from Personal Construct Psychology. I wanted to understand how they viewed their role in the integration and inclusion of refugees in their societies, in a context where the image of refugees was deeply influenced by social media, especially after terror attacks. I also wanted to discover what knowledge and skills they developed through the process of understanding themselves by identifying their construct systems - the "lenses" they used when decoding digital propaganda targeting sensitive and controversial issues such as the Syrian refugee crisis. Through our discussions, each of these 42 young people had an "aha moment." Regardless of their geographical locations or the ways they experienced the refugee crisis and the recent terror attacks, they had the same sudden realisation. Not only could they control how social media influenced them, but they also had a role to play in shaping the image of refugees through what they shared online. They became critical of media content. They developed empathy towards both refugees and people who rejected newcomers. They moved from passive bystanders to became confident agents of change, ready to play a leadership role in counterbalancing the digital hate speech propaganda against refugees. To eradicate digital hate speech propaganda, we need to prevent propagandists from reaching their objectives. Laws such as Germany’s "Facebook Act" constitute one piece of the solution. The other key is to make sure audiences are trained to better withstand manipulation. Our youth, once equipped and empowered, are our best candidates to disrupt the messages spread by propagandists and to pursue the mission of putting a stop to hate speech. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Trump effect in Canada: A 600 per cent increase in online hate speech

Germany&#39;s Justice Minister put forward a tough new draft law on Tuesday calling for social networks like Facebook to take faster action to remove slanderous or threatening online postings quickly or face stiff fines of up to 50 million euros.

&quot;This (draft law) sets out binding standards for the way operators of social networks deal with complaints and obliges them to delete criminal content,&quot; said Heiko Maas, a Social Democrat minister.

Failing to comply would breach the rules and could result in a fine of up to 50 million euros against an organisation, he said.

The country already has some of the world&#39;s toughest hate speech laws covering defamation, slander, public incitement to commit crimes and threats of violence and is seeking to update its rules in the fast-moving, often anonymous social media age.

(Reuters)

&nbsp;

The fine could be as high as 50 million euros

Germany's Justice Minister put forward a tough new draft law on Tuesday calling for social networks like Facebook to take faster action to remove slanderous or threatening online postings quickly or face stiff fines of up to 50 million euros. "This (draft law) sets out binding standards for the way operators of social networks deal with complaints and obliges them to delete criminal content," said Heiko Maas, a Social Democrat minister. Failing to comply would breach the rules and could result in a fine of up to 50 million euros against an organisation, he said. The country already has some of the world's toughest hate speech laws covering defamation, slander, public incitement to commit crimes and threats of violence and is seeking to update its rules in the fast-moving, often anonymous social media age. (Reuters)

Germany plans to fine social networks if they don't remove hate speech

Myanmar is cracking down on Buddhist extremism, aiming to curb ethnic and religious tension that saw two mosques destroyed and scores of Muslim residents fleeing their villages in recent weeks. 
 
Nobel Peace Prize winner and government leader Aung San Suu Kyi has come under criticism from human rights activists and lawyers for not cracking down on the perpetrators of the attacks aimed at the Muslim minority. 
 
In an apparent response to the criticism, the government has made a surprisingly decisive move against an organisation of radical nationalist monks, known as the Ma Ba Tha, threatening legal action if it spread hate speech and incites violence. 
 
Today the government launched a taskforce to prevent violent protests as part of a broader push to stop religious violence. 
 
Religious tension simmered in Buddhist-majority Myanmar for almost half a century of military rule, before boiling over in 2012 in the west of the country into clashes between Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists. 
 
Violence between Muslims and Buddhists in other areas followed in 2013 and 2014. 
 
President Htin Kyaw said in a statement the taskforce will not only move against violent protesters, but also investigate and hold accountable anyone inciting violence. 
 
&quot;We do not want to disturb peaceful protests, but we do not allow violence while protesting,&quot; said Zaw Htay, spokesman of the state councillor&#39;s office occupied by Suu Kyi. 
 
A government-appointed body that oversees Myanmar&#39;s Buddhist monkhood, the State Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee, issued a statement this week, saying it had never endorsed the nationalist and anti-Muslim Ma Ba Tha. 
 
In June, a group of 200 villagers destroyed a mosque and injured a Muslim man in central Myanmar after a dispute over the construction of a Muslim school. 
 
In a separate incident in northern Myanmar in early July, nearly 500 Buddhists burned down a Muslim prayer hall. Police arrested five in connection with the attack, media said. 
 
In both incidents, Muslim residents fled from their homes fearing more widespread violence. 
 
Some 125,000 Rohingya Muslims displaced by the 2012 violence remain in camps in the west. 
 
(Reuters)

Myanmar has threatened legal action against radical Buddhist organisation, Ma Ba Tha, if it spreads hate speech and incites violence

Myanmar is cracking down on Buddhist extremism, aiming to curb ethnic and religious tension that saw two mosques destroyed and scores of Muslim residents fleeing their villages in recent weeks. Nobel Peace Prize winner and government leader Aung San Suu Kyi has come under criticism from human rights activists and lawyers for not cracking down on the perpetrators of the attacks aimed at the Muslim minority. In an apparent response to the criticism, the government has made a surprisingly decisive move against an organisation of radical nationalist monks, known as the Ma Ba Tha, threatening legal action if it spread hate speech and incites violence. Today the government launched a taskforce to prevent violent protests as part of a broader push to stop religious violence. Religious tension simmered in Buddhist-majority Myanmar for almost half a century of military rule, before boiling over in 2012 in the west of the country into clashes between Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists. Violence between Muslims and Buddhists in other areas followed in 2013 and 2014. President Htin Kyaw said in a statement the taskforce will not only move against violent protesters, but also investigate and hold accountable anyone inciting violence. "We do not want to disturb peaceful protests, but we do not allow violence while protesting," said Zaw Htay, spokesman of the state councillor's office occupied by Suu Kyi. A government-appointed body that oversees Myanmar's Buddhist monkhood, the State Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee, issued a statement this week, saying it had never endorsed the nationalist and anti-Muslim Ma Ba Tha. In June, a group of 200 villagers destroyed a mosque and injured a Muslim man in central Myanmar after a dispute over the construction of a Muslim school. In a separate incident in northern Myanmar in early July, nearly 500 Buddhists burned down a Muslim prayer hall. Police arrested five in connection with the attack, media said. In both incidents, Muslim residents fled from their homes fearing more widespread violence. Some 125,000 Rohingya Muslims displaced by the 2012 violence remain in camps in the west. (Reuters)

After violence, Myanmar moves to curb religious extremism

Facebook, Twitter, Google&#39;s YouTube and Microsoft today agreed to an 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, with some even threatening action against the companies.

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.

They will also strengthen their cooperation with civil society organisations who help flag hateful content when it goes online and promote &quot;counter-narratives&quot; to hate speech.

&quot;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,&quot; EU Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said.

Germany got Google, Facebook and Twitter to agree to delete hate speech from their websites within 24 hours last year and even launched an investigation into the European head of Facebook over its alleged failure to remove racist hate speech.

&quot;There&#39;s no place for hate speech on Facebook,&quot; said Monika Bickert, Head of Global Policy Management at Facebook.

&quot;With a global community of 1.6 billion people,&nbsp;we work hard to balance giving people the power to express themselves whilst ensuring we provide a respectful environment.&quot;

The code of conduct is largely a continuation of efforts that the companies already take to counter hate speech on their websites, 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 Islamic State.

The United States has undertaken similar efforts to entice the cooperation of tech companies in combating online radicalisation, focusing on promoting &quot;counter-narratives&quot; to extremist content.

EU ministers had called for cooperation with tech companies to be stepped up after the Brussels attacks in March.

Jewish lobbyists, frequently the target of hate speech, welcomed the code of conduct.

&quot;This a historic agreement that could not arrive at a better time,&rdquo; said Dr. Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

Following migrant refugee crisis and terror attacks, governments have been trying to crack down on inflammatory online content.

Facebook, Twitter, Google's YouTube and Microsoft today agreed to an 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, with some even threatening action against the companies. 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. They will also strengthen their cooperation with civil society organisations who help flag hateful content when it goes online and promote "counter-narratives" to hate speech. "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," EU Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said. Germany got Google, Facebook and Twitter to agree to delete hate speech from their websites within 24 hours last year and even launched an investigation into the European head of Facebook over its alleged failure to remove racist hate speech. "There's no place for hate speech on Facebook," said Monika Bickert, Head of Global Policy Management at Facebook. "With a global community of 1.6 billion people, we work hard to balance giving people the power to express themselves whilst ensuring we provide a respectful environment." The code of conduct is largely a continuation of efforts that the companies already take to counter hate speech on their websites, 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 Islamic State. The United States has undertaken similar efforts to entice the cooperation of tech companies in combating online radicalisation, focusing on promoting "counter-narratives" to extremist content. EU ministers had called for cooperation with tech companies to be stepped up after the Brussels attacks in March. Jewish lobbyists, frequently the target of hate speech, welcomed the code of conduct. "This a historic agreement that could not arrive at a better time,” said Dr. Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft back EU hate speech rules

hate-speech

Hate Speech, News on Hate Speech, stories on Hate Speech, articles on Hate Speech, Hate Speech stories at Wion, Hate Speech news, Hate Speech latest news