Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race,

religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.

Hate Speech cannot be objectively filtered.

It would depend upon the person reading if such is hate speech. What is hate speech to a person may be
an eye opener to another.

Hate speech must be categorically defined to be distinguished against free speech.

Personal biases must be eliminated which is very impossible to do.

Media inevitably influences decisions and opinion.

The possibility if not yet a fact that facebook is being used by political manipulators cannot be ignored.

Facebook is continuously evolving.

The internet is a virtual world where jurisdiction and territory does not apply. If such system is being
limited by jurisdiction or territory as being related to states and countries, that would not be called
internet but only widely known as INTRANET.

Whenever a controversy like this arises, there's always the danger that
Congress's response will be to step and overregulate.

Cambridge Analytica (CA) is a British political consulting firm which combines data mining,
data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process. It was
started in 2013 as an offshoot of the SCL Group.

The second is around giving people complete control. This is the most
important principle for Facebook: Every piece of content that you share on
Facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and — and
how you share it, and you can remove it at any time.

CANTWELL: Okay. Total Information Awareness was, 2003, John Ashcroft

and others trying to do similar things to what I think is behind all of this —
geopolitical forces trying to get data and information to influence a process.
So, when I look at Palantir and what they're doing; and I look at WhatsApp,
which is another acquisition; and I look at where you are, from the 2011
consent decree, and where you are today; I am thinking, “Is this guy outfoxing
the foxes? Or is he going along with what is a major trend in an information
age, to try to harvest information for political forces?”

Internet cannot and should not be regulated. Regulation of such would tantamount to data breach by
the government itself. The differentiation of the ISP and the platform would be very important.

People of the older generation are totally aware that whatever information they enter, pictures they
upload, messages they send, and speeches they post, are vulnerable to being copied. The people of the
new generation, relying too much in technology, stupidly crying like a baby over information that they
themselves entered.

I asked your general counsel about Facebook's role as a breeding ground for
hate speech against Rohingya refugees. Recently, U.N. investigators blamed
Facebook for playing a role in inciting possible genocide in Myanmar. And
there has been genocide there.
Can facebook be blamed? No. The platform cannot be blamed as facebook is a media open for
all. Facebook is not the same as the traditional media wherein the information comes from the
media themselves but from the individual contributions of its users.

Facebook, a platform for all ideas.

Even if Facebook is stopped by the U.S. Government, it would still work somewhere else because
the internet cannot be regulated.

Beyond that, would you agree that Facebook ought not be putting its thumb on
the scale with regard to the content of speech, assuming it fits out of one of
those categories that — that's prohibited?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, yes. There are generally two categories of content
that — that we're very worried about. One are things that could cause real
world harm, so terrorism certainly fits into that, self-harm fits into that, I
would consider election interference to fit into that and those are the types of
things that we — I — I don't really consider there to be much discussion
around whether those are good or bad topics.

The issue revolves in the data breach by Cambridge analytica of personal informations of facebook.

Mr. Zuckerberg, thanks for being here. At current pace, you're due to be done
with the first round of questioning by about 1:00 a.m., so congratulations.

I — I like Chris Coons a lot, with his own family, or with Dan Sullivan's family.
Both are great photos. But I want to ask a similar set of questions from the
other side, maybe.

I think the line — the conceptual line between mirror-tech company, mirror
tools, and an actual content company, I think it's really hard. I think you guys
have a hard challenge. I think regulation over time will have a hard challenge.
And you're a private company so you can make policies that may be less than
First Amendment full spirit embracing in my view. But I worry about that. I
worry about a world where when you go from violent groups to hate speech in
a hurry — and one of your responses to the opening questions, you may
decide, or Facebook may decide, it needs to police a whole bunch of speech,
that I think America might be better off not having policed by one company
that has a really big and powerful platform.

Can you define hate speech?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I think that this is a really hard question. And I think
it's one of the reasons why we struggle with it. There are certain definitions
that — that we — that we have around, you know, calling for violence or ...

SASSE: Let's just agree on that.

ZUCKERBERG: Yes.

SASSE: If somebody's calling for violence, we — that shouldn't be there. I'm

worried about the psychological categories around speech. You used language
of safety and protection earlier. We see this happening on college campuses all
across the country. It's dangerous. Forty percent of Americans under age 35
tell pollsters they think the First Amendment is dangerous because you might
use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else's feelings.

Guess what? There are some really passionately held views about the abortion
issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide
that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion views on
your content — on your platform?

ZUCKERBERG: I certainly would not want that to be the case.

==

On the flip side, we've seen with Rohingya, that example of, you know, where
the state could use similar data or use this platform to go after people. You
talked about what you're doing in that regard, hiring more, you know,
traditional — or, local-language speakers. What else are you doing in that
regard to ensure that these states don't — or, these governments go after
opposition figures or others?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, there are three main things that we're doing, in
Myanmar specifically, and that will apply to — to other situations like that.
The first is hiring enough people to do local language support, because the
definition of hate speech or things that can be racially coded to incite violence
are very language-specific and we can't do that with just English speakers for
people around the world. So we need to grow that.

The second is, in these countries there tend to be active civil society, who can
help us identify the figures who are — who are spreading hate. And we can
work with them in order to make sure that those figures don't have a place on
our platform.
The vastness of Facebook’s reach makes hate speech monitoring entirely difficult if not impossible. Its
like trying to monitor the conversation of the whole population of a continent. AI cannot distinguish and
can never identify if such speech would be categorized as hate speech.

It comes to my attention that if the government would try to monitor and regulate facebook, its like
regulating and monitoring all of the activities of all users of the facebook platform.