Support NeoGAF

[SolarPowered]

Whatever it takes to not end up like America.

Seriously

This dark period in our democracy will probably be dissected by academics, government officials and students in other countries for decades to come. That is one of the only things sane Americans can take away from this.

 

[Joe Condor]

Before Americans come into this thread and cry about free speech, they gave Facebook and friends a year to improve themselves and nothing happened. Twitter even got worse.

Something like this isn't gonna fly in the US after the supreme court ruled that hate speech is free speech.

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech' exception to the First Amendment

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an ”egregious form of content discrimination," which is ”presumptively unconstitutional." ... A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

 

[s_mirage]

That is certainly the case. But it will evolve. Just like every other law.

Unless it's shot down by the courts, why will it evolve to limit it's scope? How often do governments/legislatures deliberately curtail powers that they/the judiciary already hold?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Honestly, given how steep a fuckup on this is, I could almost imagine it being cheaper for these companies to just stop operating in Germany altogether.

 

[Maximo]

Jesus Christ with you people defending this shit, seriously? Who the fuck defines what's fake news? "Conspiracy theories" about the CIA that constantly turn out to be true (coup d' etats, hijacking elections, involvement in wars, gun and drug smuggling) could be considered fake news.

This is a clear and disgusting attempt at censorship of voices that disagree with the mainstream narrative the corporate media are shaping. I'll never understand people who vehemently defend censorship.

People always jump to the doom and gloom, if there is evidence of it being blatantly abused for censorship then yes that shit should not stand but we have not seen any evidence of this, no one has brought up any examples for discussion.

 

[Metal B]

Something like this isn't gonna fly in the US after the supreme court ruled that hate speech is free speech.

A big problem in the US! Hate speech is just damaging, there isn't any positive effects to gain from them. It's a discrimination tool and nothing more.
You know, we in Germany know a few things about the consequences of Hate Speech.

 

[freeofgreed]

Something like this isn't gonna fly in the US after the supreme court ruled that hate speech is free speech.

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

What does that have to do with his post?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Quick search tells me Facebook earned about 3 billion in profit last quarter. So they have enough resources to hire people to make the algorithms to filter things and people to check manually where needed.

I'm not convinced that's reasonable, really. If you say "I hate niggers, they ruin everything", that's easy. If you say "Hilary Clinton's aides are raping kids in a pizza restaurant", that's easy too. But these employees checking it can't really just be random goons. If I post an article that I found (or maybe that I wrote on my blog) about how I think the President of South Korea's father is embezzling money through private finance initiatives, it could be total lies. It could have a kernel of truth surrounded by lies. It could have a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of conjecture. It could be totally true. It could be a next weeks big news story on all the major networks, or it could be a total work of fiction. I don't think an algorithm could realistically determine this, and even if it flagged it, who's going to determine that? A Facebook employee?

 

[Joe Condor]

What does that have to do with his post?

That Americans don't have to cry about their free speech in the way he was referring to?

 

[Fritz]

The "how do you define" argument is STUPID!!!


Every punitive law has to be defined. That's what you need courts for. How do you define murder?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You weigh the cost of moderation vs the cost of fines, and you figure that shit out logistically.

Ridiculous that companies making billions of dollars hand over fist dragged their feet so long on this.

True, but I was really surprised at how much psychology that goes into trying to moderate something like Facebook.

In this radiolab episode, one of the chief engineers explain that during christmas, millions of people will flag content as "harassment" or "hate speech" because the simply don't like the photo.

There are more than a billion people on Facebook now. So moderation on a case by case basis is impossible. It's just too much. They need better curated tools, and it seems they are working on it and making progress.

 

[freeofgreed]

That Americans don't have to cry about their free speech in the way he was referring to?

No his post was about Americans crying about this law. Everyone knows something like this (for better or for worse) would never happen in the states.

 

[Muffin1611]

Something like this isn't gonna fly in the US after the supreme court ruled that hate speech is free speech.

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

No shit. That's why Germany and not the US is making this law, since it has hate speech laws.

Newspapers and so on aren't allowed to spread hate speech here, so why should Facebook?

Of course the law isn't perfect yet and will get refined over time to make clear what can get deleted and what not.

And it's certainly not like Facebook and Twitter don't have enough money to build algorithms that operate under those rules.

 

[RinsFury]

Good. I agree with these fines, and hope other countries adopt similar measures.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

How would this actually work in action on sites like Facebook given how global they operate?

Not Germany's problem.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The "how do you define" argument is STUPID!!!


Every punitive law has to be defined. That's what you need courts for. How do you define murder?

Yeah, but that's the point - there's a court involved. Judges and lawyers with significant educations and qualifications. Libel and slander cases can go on for years with lawyers arguing about what constitutes the truth, what constitutes defamation etc. This places that burden onto employees of Facebook.

 

[Xando]

Yeah, but that's the point - there's a court involved. Judges and lawyers with significant educations and qualifications. Libel and slander cases can go on for years with lawyers arguing about what constitutes the truth, what constitutes defamation etc. This places that burden onto employees of Facebook.

Not sure where you are from but hate speech(volksverhetzung) court cases are generally quite fast in germany.

Other types of media dealt with it for 50 years so Facebook and friends can aswell.

 

[Nerazar]

That's a good move. We have to step in in cases of vile hate speech online. This tool may be abused to censor things, but unless that happens, there must be at least some kind of rule against that hate speech.

It will also stabilize democracies if botnets are no longer able to spread fake news that easily. I really don't want to deal with a German Pizzagate or fact-blind "Truthers". And I am tired of "defending" free speech rights of Nazis and people who will destroy democratic institutions after seizing the power to do so.

This law has to be improved, but there has to be a first step.

 

[Jay Sosa]

muh

 

[CyclopsRock]

Not sure where you are from but hate speech(volksverhetzung) court cases are generally quite fast in germany.

Other types of media dealt with it for 50 years so Facebook and friends can aswell.

In the UK they aren't!

And yes, but other types of media have editorial bodies and they decide what goes in their publication/show before it's published. Facebook and co are playing catch up by virtue of the way the whole thing works.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Not sure where you are from but hate speech(volksverhetzung) court cases are generally quite fast in germany.

Other types of media dealt with it for 50 years so Facebook and friends can aswell.

Facebook is a platform, though, not specifically a publisher of media. This is more like suing a convenience store chain because they sell one or more magazine that had one or more articles containing fake news and/or hate speech.

 

[entremet]

Facebook is a platform, though, not specifically a publisher of media. This is more like suing a convenience store chain because they sell one or more magazine that had one or more articles containing fake news and/or hate speech.

Many of the laws are written by folks that have no understanding of technology.

 

[benjipwns]

Facebook is a platform, though, not specifically a publisher of media. This is more like suing a convenience store chain because they sell one or more magazine that had one or more articles containing fake news and/or hate speech.

I like where you're going with this. But obviously it should be criminal, I shouldn't have to sue a bookstore for containing books full of lies.

 

[Lime]

It's good that they're targetting Facebook and Twitter, because they are absolutely horrible when it comes to curating their spaces.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Something like this isn't gonna fly in the US after the supreme court ruled that hate speech is free speech.

Also, if you go to that thread you'll see more of GAF agreeing with it than against it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not convinced that's reasonable, really. If you say "I hate niggers, they ruin everything", that's easy. If you say "Hilary Clinton's aides are raping kids in a pizza restaurant", that's easy too. But these employees checking it can't really just be random goons. If I post an article that I found (or maybe that I wrote on my blog) about how I think the President of South Korea's father is embezzling money through private finance initiatives, it could be total lies. It could have a kernel of truth surrounded by lies. It could have a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of conjecture. It could be totally true. It could be a next weeks big news story on all the major networks, or it could be a total work of fiction. I don't think an algorithm could realistically determine this, and even if it flagged it, who's going to determine that? A Facebook employee?

I think the system works with reports from other people, so first someone has to report it. Then you can put it through an algorithm. Let's say 10.000 people shared a story, once it has been checked once, it doesn't need to be checked for the other reports again. You can train employees to do it. Point is, Facebook is a massive company and these excuses that it is going to be hard for them doesn't really make a difference. They are a multibillion dollar corporation with all the resources to implement the needed changes.

Of course there is going to be some grey area here and there. And we will see how it works out in practice. With these things it is impossible to make a law that will 100% get everything right without discussion, but that does not mean we should just sit by and do nothing for years again.

Facebook is a platform, though, not specifically a publisher of media. This is more like suing a convenience store chain because they sell one or more magazine that had one or more articles containing fake news and/or hate speech.

No, Facebook is placing the content in their own database and allowing people to add content to it. It is not at all like your example.

 

[Ghost]

I'm all for Facebook and Twitter sorting their own shit out without the need for laws and fines but the problem is that they've proven they'll only do anything about hate speech and fake news if they can do it without affecting their bottom line because they are owned by shareholders.

That's why we I think ultimately fines like this will work, with these in place in a few countries, boardrooms will be able to say 'we will spend $X billion on policing content to avoid $Y billion in fines'. Twitter will start banning people in ways that prevent them from rejoining, Facebook will stop accepting ad money from fake news sites...yes this will make these platforms less open and there will be a need for the public to stay vigilant to stop these powers being abused, but you know, sorry Libertarians but we tried it your way and check out the President.

 

[Shiggy]

It's good that they're targetting Facebook and Twitter, because they are absolutely horrible when it comes to curating their spaces.

The new law is not doing a great job though. Twitter has already started blocking certain messages/accounts in Germany, which aren't hate speech or fake news at all:

An account like this is only collecting press releases from press/police about criminal immigrants, which isn't hate speech or fake news: https://twitter.com/Einzelfallinfos

Or this tweet is also blocked in Germany: https://twitter.com/TobiasHuch/status/876032986432638977

 

[Dierce]

Honestly, given how steep a fuckup on this is, I could almost imagine it being cheaper for these companies to just stop operating in Germany altogether.

That would be great. Facebook and Twitter have contributed more to the decline of human decency than anything else in history. There is nothing positive that they have achieved, at least not something that couldn't have been done in some other way.

 

[jts]

Make it a EU thing.

 

[slit]

Not Germany's problem.

Actually it could be if social media sites start blocking German IPs. German citizens will be the ones complaining, nobody else.

 

[benjipwns]

That would be great. Facebook and Twitter have contributed more to the decline of human decency than anything else in history.

Language probably tops either.

Or maybe opposable thumbs.

 

[Vuze]

Doubled edged sword but we'll see how it plays out. For the time being it's fun seeing how the loose German collective of twitter users that systematically pesters others and has formed over recent years is all up in arms about this.

 

[Xando]

Facebook is a platform, though, not specifically a publisher of media. This is more like suing a convenience store chain because they sell one or more magazine that had one or more articles containing fake news and/or hate speech.

Facebook is a plattform where you consume media just like TV, YouTube, GAF or reddit.

 

[Moosichu]

This law is incredibly dumb. How are social media sites even meant to police this?

To be honest, it should be users that get fined for this, not the platforms that host user content.

It should be a "if notified about hate speech then a company should take it down within a week", rather than this ridiculous, impossible to abide by law.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think the system works with reports from other people, so first someone has to report it. Then you can put it through an algorithm. Let's say 10.000 people shared a story, once it has been checked once, it doesn't need to be checked for the other reports again. You can train employees to do it. Point is, Facebook is a massive company and these excuses that it is going to be hard for them doesn't really make a difference. They are a multibillion dollar corporation with all the resources to implement the needed changes.

Of course there is going to be some grey area here and there. And we will see how it works out in practice. With these things it is impossible to make a law that will 100% get everything right without discussion, but that does not mean we should just sit by and do nothing for years again.


No, Facebook is placing the content in their own database and allowing people to add content to it. It is not at all like your example.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but the whole legal system around saying or printing lies or hate speech has a well established process which involves layers and judges and checks and balances. You seem happy to outsource this entire process to Corporations on the grounds that they have lots of money. By going after the platform rather than the actual perpetrator the German legislators are effectively putting the ball entirely in their court.

 

[eizarus]

A big problem in the US! Hate speech is just damaging, there isn't any positive effects to gain from them. It's a discrimination tool and nothing more.
You know, we in Germany know a few things about the consequences of Hate Speech.

This, on so many levels. Freedom of speech is a beautiful concept. But it's not an absolute. It doesn't work as an absolute.

 

[Moosichu]

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but the whole legal system around saying or printing lies or hate speech has a well established process which involves layers and judges and checks and balances. You seem happy to outsource this entire process to Corporations on the grounds that they have lots of money. By going after the platform rather than the actual perpetrator the German legislators are effectively putting the ball entirely in their court.

^^ this.

 

[benjipwns]

This, on so many levels. Freedom of speech is a beautiful concept. But it's not an absolute. It doesn't work as an absolute.

That's the only form in which it works. Otherwise it's missing the whole "freedom" part.

 

[slit]

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but the whole legal system around saying or printing lies or hate speech has a well established process which involves layers and judges and checks and balances. You seem happy to outsource this entire process to Corporations on the grounds that they have lots of money. By going after the platform rather than the actual perpetrator the German legislators are effectively putting the ball entirely in their court.

Yeah but they can't if the person lives outside of Germany which means nothing would really change. I'm not suggesting this law will change anything either but neither solution is likely to work.

 

[Joe Condor]

Also, if you go to that thread you'll see more of GAF agreeing with it than against it.

Yup and it warms my heart!

 

[Moosichu]

Yeah but they can't if the person lives outside of Germany which means nothing would really change. I'm not suggesting this law will change anything either but neither solution is likely to work.

It is super complicated. But it's worth pointing out that something like this only strengthens the stronghold on the market existing social media companies already have.

Something like this needs a lot of resources to implement, so how are startups with new ideas meant to compete?

 

[Muffin1611]

That's the only form in which it works. Otherwise it's missing the whole "freedom" part.

I'll take the importance of human dignity with a few restrictions on free speech over no restrictions whatsoever on free speech, thank you very much.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah but they can't if the person lives outside of Germany which means nothing would really change. I'm not suggesting this law will change anything either but neither solution is likely to work.

I agree, it's a tricky one. This law seems like it'll grab money from Facebook and co with little chance of successfully solving the problem it's nominally there to solve. Given that it's not actually Facebook's fault, that seems a little unreasonable to me.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Actually it could be if social media sites start blocking German IPs. German citizens will be the ones complaining, nobody else.

 

[Somnid]

This strikes me as another instance of Europe foolheartedly trying to solve technical issues with legislation. The difficulty of moderation isn't for lack of trying, nor does nebulous requirements help the matter.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Actually it could be if social media sites start blocking German IPs. German citizens will be the ones complaining, nobody else.

Losing those billions because you don't want to pay 5m.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I would just ban German IPs from using the service. Too much hassle to police something the size of facebook.

 

[Joe Condor]

I'll take the importance of human dignity with a few restrictions on free speech over no restrictions whatsoever on free speech, thank you very much.

Because it's not like there are oversensitive people out there that will see legit criticism as hate speech.

 

[War Peaceman]

This strikes me as another instance of Europe foolheartedly trying to solve technical issues with legislation. The difficulty of moderation isn't for lack of trying, nor does nebulous requirements help the matter.

There are many questions to be asked about how this could actually be implemented, but it seems clear to me that the only way big corporations will change their ways is through threatening their profits. So I support the spirit of the law at least.