Federal Funds Used to Research ‘Hate Speech’ on Gab
Allum Bokhari1 Mar 2020700 3:04
Researchers at USC used federal funds to compile a “corpus” of “hate speech” on Gab, the First Amendment-friendly social media network that provides an alternative to increasingly censorious platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
Titled “The Gab Hate Corpus: A collection of 27k posts annotated for hate speech,” the project involved over a dozen researchers and was sponsored by funds from the National Science Foundation, a federal body that distributes taxpayer money to fund scientific research, including “social sciences.”
The current NSF director is an Obama appointee, France A. Córdova. The NSF’s budget in 2020 was increased by 2.5 percent on the previous year, to $8.28 billion. Part of that taxpayer money, it seems, is now going to study “hate speech” on Gab.
“The growing prominence of online hate speech is a threat to a safe and just society,” declares the study. “This endangering phenomenon requires collaboration across the sciences in order to generate evidence-based knowledge of, and policies for, the dissemination of hatred in online spaces.”
The report also claims to “establish baseline classification performance for each using standard natural language processing methods.” Natural language processing is a subfield of linguistics, AI and computer science that among other things involves training AIs how to recognize and analyze human speech.
In a statement, Gab slammed the researchers for “cherrypicking” items of speech from its website.
“These researchers used federal funds to highlight 27,000 posts out of more than 93,000,000 on our site (0.029%) to promote the online censorship of American citizens,” said a Gab spokesman.
“Gab has over 3 million visitors, users, and customers from around the world. Our fastest-growing markets are the United States, India, and Spain. Our users have diverse ideological, cultural, and social perspectives. Studies like this seek to gaslight millions of great people in our community based on a negligible fraction of posts on the site.”
“For years now yellow journalists and shoddy researchers have consistently cherry-picked individual users or small groups on our site in an effort to discredit our mission, which is to protect the First Amendment online and empower everyone to speak freely and securely.”
“They have failed and will continue to fail. Gab will continue to build people-powered solutions to Big Tech bias and online censorship.”Are you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address firstname.lastname@example.org.
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
UN official admits there is NO LEGAL DEFINITION of “hate speech”
YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP IS GETTING DESPERATE, — PAUL FROMM WITH BRIAN RUHE
Raised so far: £2,105
Name: Elsa Schieder
Recommended: Chip in £20
AfD: German Hate Speech Law Destroys Freedom of Speech, Bans Political Dissent
January 5, 2018
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Germany’s new “hate speech” law, which regulates posting on Twitter and Facebook, is a restrictive measure targeting freedom of speech and political dissent in the country, AfD member Albert Breininger told Sputnik Friday.
“Here in the AfD, we are very critical of this law. It is another restrictive measure and a tool of repression against freedom of speech and of the press. It aims at preventing people and politicians from bringing up certain issues and expressing their political views, including on the existing problem of Islamization,” Breininger said.
The politician recalled that deputy leader of the AfD’s parliamentary faction Beatrix von Storch’s tweet was blocked on Tuesday by the social media giant, citing that the message had run afoul of Germanlaws.
“German police have filed a complaint against Beatrix von Storch over a tweet on New Year’s Eve, where she criticized Cologne police for sending a New Year’s greeting in Arabic on Twitter,” he said.
Germany’s hate speech law, also known as NetzDG after its full German name, aims to regulate social media platforms and to make sure hate speech and terror propaganda is removed from the networks, came into full force on Monday.
The legislation was approved by the Bundestag in late June. According to the law, introduced by German Minister of Justice Heiko Maas, all materials containing hate speech or propaganda for terrorism must be deleted within seven days, or within 24 hours in cases of clearly illegal content. Systematic violations of the requirements would be dealt fines of up to 50 million euros ($57 million).
THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN
SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 2017
One example of this is Bill C-16, which passed its third-reading in the Senate on Thursday, June 15th and which was signed into law by the Governor-General on Monday, June 19th. Bill C-16 is a bill which amends both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. To the former it adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of grounds of discrimination prohibited by the Act. To the latter it adds the same to Section 318, the “hate propaganda” clause of the Code. The Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code were both inflicted upon us by the present premier’s father in his long reign of terror and it would have been better had the present Parliament passed legislation striking both out of existence rather than amending them to increase the number of ways in which they can be used to persecute Canadians. When, a century and a half ago, the Fathers of Confederation put together the British North America Act which, coming into effect on July 1, 1867, established the Dominion of Canada as a new nation within what would soon develop into the British Commonwealth of Nations, their intention was to create a free country, whose citizens, English and French, as subjects of the Crown, would possess all the freedoms and the protection of all the rights that had accumulated to such in over a thousand years of legal evolution. The CHRA and Section 318 do not belong in such a country – they are more appropriate to totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Third Reich.
The CHRA, which Parliament passed in 1977 during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau, prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds including race, religion, sex, and country of origin. It applies in a number of different areas with the provision of goods and services, facilities and accommodations, and employment being chief among them. Those charged with enforcing this legislation have generally operated according to an unwritten rule that it is only discrimination when whites, Christians, and males are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even if that were not the case, the very idea of a law of this sort runs contrary to the basic principles of our traditional freedoms and system of justice. It dictates to employers, landlords, and several other people, what they can and cannot be thinking when conducting the everyday affairs of their business. It establishes a special police force and court – the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal respectively – to investigate and sit in judgement upon those private thoughts and prejudices. Those charged do not have the protection of the presumption of innocence because the CHRA is classified as civil rather than criminal law.
There are more protections for defendants under Section 318 because it is part of the Criminal Code but it is still a bad law. Incitement of criminal violence was already against the law long before Section 318 was added. It is not, therefore, the incitement of criminal violence per se that Section 318 was introduced to combat, for the existing laws were sufficient, but the thinking and verbal expression of thoughts that the Liberal Party has decided Canadians ought not to think and speak.
Bill C-16 takes these bad laws and makes them even worse. By adding “gender identity and expression” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination the Liberals are adding people who think and say that they belong to a gender that does not match up with their biological birth sex to the groups protected from discrimination. Now, ordinarily when people think they are something they are not, like, for example, the man who thinks he is Julius Caesar, we, if we are decent people, would say that this is grounds for pity and compassion, but we would not think of compelling others to go along with the delusion. Imagine a law that says that we have to regard a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar as actually being the Roman general! Such a law would be crazier than the man himself!
Bill C-16 is exactly that kind of law. Don’t be fooled by those who claim otherwise. The discrimination that trans activists, the Trudeau Liberals and their noise machine, i.e., the Canadian media, and everyone else who supports this bill, all want to see banned, is not just the refusing of jobs or apartments to transgender people but the refusal to accept as real a “gender identity” that does not match up with biological sex. Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto who has been fighting this sort of nonsense at the provincial level for years, and who testified against the Bill before the Senate committee that reviewed it, has warned that it could lead to someone being charged with a “hate crime” for using the pronoun – “he” or “she” – that lines up with a person’s birth sex, rather than some alternative pronoun made-up to designate that person’s “gender identity.” Supporters of the bill have mocked this assertion but we have seen this sort of thing before – progressives propose some sort of measure, someone points out that the measure will have this or that negative consequence, the progressives ridicule that person, and then, when the measure is passed and has precisely the negative consequences predicted, say that those negatively affected deserved it in the first place.
Indeed, progressive assurances that Peterson’s fears are unwarranted ring incredibly hollow when we consider that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has said that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” would be considered discrimination under a similar clause in Ontario’s provincial Human Rights Code, if it were to take place in a context where discrimination in general is prohibited, such as the workplace. Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, writing in the National Post, explains that this new expansion of human rights legislation goes way beyond previous “hate speech” laws in its infringement upon freedom of speech. “When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself,” Pardy writes, but “Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.”
It is too much, perhaps, to expect Captain Airhead to understand or care about this. Like his father before him – and indeed, every Liberal Prime Minister going back to and including Mackenzie King – he has little to no appreciation of either the traditional freedoms that are part of Canada’s British heritage or the safeguards of those freedoms bequeathed us by the Fathers of Confederation in our parliamentary government under the Crown. For a century, Liberal governments have whittled away at every parliamentary obstacle to the absolute power of a Prime Minister backed by a House majority. The powers of the Crown, Senate, and the Opposition in the House to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accountable have all been dangerously eroded in this manner. Last year the present government attempted to strip Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition of what few means it has left of delaying government legislation. The motion in question was withdrawn after the Prime Minister came under strong criticism for behaving like a spoiled, bullying, petty thug in the House but it revealed his character. These Opposition powers are a necessary safeguard against Prime Ministerial dictatorship but Captain Airhead, the son of an admirer of Stalin and Mao, regards them, like the freedoms they protect, as an unacceptable hindrance to his getting his way as fast as he possibly can. Years ago, George Grant wrote that the justices of the American Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had “used the language of North American liberalism to say yes to the very core of fascist thought – the triumph of the will.” This is also the modus operandi of Captain Airhead and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Catholic Cardinal in Spain facing hate crime charges for criticizing the homosexual empire and Europe’s open door immigration policy
For the Censors at You Tube,
Questioning the Hollywood Versions of WW II is ‘Hate Speech’
Prolific Vancouver videographer Brian Ruhe who has done dozens of commentaries questioning the Hollywood version of World War II has lost a number of teaching positions because of organized Zionist pressure. Now his most recent offering has been scrubbed from You Tube and he’s received a preachy scolding.
His video is ‘inappropriate’ — that vacuous, politically correct term meaning ‘we don’t like it.’
Apparently, his latest video violates ‘community guidelines.” Whose community, one might ask?
“We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express their points of view, even if unpopular. However, YouTube doesn’t allow hate speech.’
Of course, You Tube supports free speech, just not for revisionists. It’s for free speech but not ‘hate speech” and, of course, they’ll decide. Free speech supporters know that ‘hate speech’ is not speech that preaches hate and destruction but speech that some powerful group HATES!
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
The YouTube community flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. After reviewing the content, we’ve determined that the videos violate our Community Guidelines. As a result, we've removed the following videos from YouTube:
- "The Nazis Gassed Six Million Lice to Death" (https://youtu.be/qrOZ4e-qoOE)
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express their points of view, even if unpopular. However, YouTube doesn't allow hate speech. Sometimes there's a fine line between what is and isn't considered hate speech. If you're not sure whether or not your content crosses the line, we ask that you don't post it. Learn more here.
Your account has received one Community Guidelines strike, which will expire in six months. Additional violations could prevent you from posting content to YouTube or even lead to your account getting terminated.