Support NeoGAF

[Kill Your Masters]

Social media companies in Germany face fines of up to 50m euros ($57.1; £43.9m) if they fail to remove "obviously illegal" content in time.

From October, Facebook, YouTube, and other sites with more that two million users in Germany must take down posts containing hate speech or other criminal material within 24 hours.

Content that is not obviously unlawful must be assessed within seven days.
The new law is one of the toughest of its kind in the world.

Failure to comply will result in a 5m euro penalty, which could rise to 50m euros depending on the severity of the offence.

On Fake news:

Mr Maas, who oversaw the legislation, told the German parliament that online hate crimes had increased by almost 300% in the past few years, adding that "no one should be above the law".

The bill was drafted after several high-profile incidents of fake news and criminal hate speech being spread on social media sites in Germany.

One case involved the targeting of prominent Green MP Renate Kunast, with a post that falsely suggested she was sympathetic to a refugee who had murdered a German student in the southern city of Freiburg.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40444354

 

[UnluckyKate]

Good.

 

[dragonfart28]

Good luck.

 

[Muffin1611]

Absolutely needed.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Good move, people need to be held accountable for their acts. You can't just go around accusing people of things, threatening them, etc, and just play it off that it doesn't count because it is online.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

Good for Germany. Need that law here in America for all the altright bastards and neonazis running around.

 

[kadotsu]

That fine is high enough for the big social companies to put some of their machine learning talent behind the problem and get actual results. Good move.

 

[Bold One]

Germany - world leaders

 

[Hektor]

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

 

[cyba89]

Good move, people need to be held accountable for their acts. You can't just go around accusing people of things, threatening them, etc, and just play it off that it doesn't count because it is online.

The fines here are for the social media companies when the don't delete this stuff fast enough, not the users.

 

[so1337]

Good.

Very very good.

 

[Nikodemos]

The fines here are for the social media companies when the don't delete this stuff fast enough, not the users.

Allowing disgusting shit to fester is indeed a big problem.

A boob pic? Instantly eliminated. "Kill all em mudslimes and rape their women"? Sits there until somebody reports it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The fines here are for the social media companies when the don't delete this stuff fast enough, not the users.

I know. It is basically impossible to go after every user, since it will clog up the justice system. So fining the social media companies for giving these people a platform is a good move, they are responsible for what users put on their networks and should watch that more closely.

 

[Xando]

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.

 

[_Ryo_]

I wonder if Google will just disable comments country wide on Youtube Germany?

 

[dragonfart28]

Will it really be so easy to enforce this?

 

[freeofgreed]

inB4 slippery slope arguments about how this will lead Germany into facism.

Great move on Germany's part. Glad at least 1 country is trying to tackle this problem instead of letting it fester under the guise of "free speech"

 

[hodgy100]

good. Facebooks application of their rules is horribly inconsistent.

Facebook failed to remove sexualised images of children

bbc reveals that facebook harbours indecent images of children and then reports teh BBC for revealing it :/

 

[Zaru]

ITT: People who probably aren't even German and haven't read anything about the criticisms of this law calling this a good thing

Promoting mass-scale fast-tracked censorship and using vaguely defined terms like "fake news" while punishing perceived offense instead of intent. What could possibly go wrong?
They even pushed this through while everyone was distracted by the gay marriage vote. Lots of experts called this straight up unconstitutional.

Something needs to be done about hate speech, fake news and all that on social media, but this particular incarnation of a law is questionable at best.

 

[Lurch666]

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.

Never had a problem with free speech.
It's people not taking responsibility for what they said that's the problem.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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

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.

 

[Moff]

ITT: People who probably aren't even German and haven't read anything about the criticisms of this law calling this a good thing

Promoting mass-scale fast-tracked censorship and using vaguely defined terms like "fake news" while punishing perceived offense instead of intent. What could possibly go wrong?
They even pushed this through while everyone was distracted by the gay marriage vote. Lots of experts called this straight up unconstitutional.

Agreed, it's a very concerning development.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

In theory I think this is a good move.
But I wonder how practical it is.
I fear that it could result in many bigger sites just disabling comment sections entirely for german IPs.

We'll see how it will work out.

 

[Xando]

Never had a problem with free speech.
It's people not taking responsibility for what they said that's the problem.

Well if it’s hate speech people can get prosecuted in Germany. This law only implements higher fines for internet giants if they fail to follow german law, just like anyone else.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Absolutely needed.

Yep, I hope other countries follow suit.

Good luck.

Also this though. Without a large dedicated division with the power to enforce this I can't see it going too far.

Good for Germany. Need that law here in America for all the altright bastards and neonazis running around.

They would never pass a law like this considering the president is the biggest purveyor of fake news on fucking Twitter.

 

[Haunted]

I wonder if Google will just disable comments country wide on Youtube Germany?

best law ever if so

 

[Sulik2]

Awesome move by Germany. Protects free speech that's the truth and hammers the damaging use of free speech.

 

[oti]

I wonder if Google will just disable comments country wide on Youtube Germany?

oh god please

 

[Zeknurn]

Good. Media companies like Youtube and Facebook should be held accountable for what they publish.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's a great goal, but I don't understand what mechanism they expect these companies to use that aren't basically automated. 2 million or more users, potentially all posting multiple times a day, is beyond what's possible to manually moderate with humans.

Edit: this is why I'm concerned re: free speech, not because you should be free to yell hate speech but because it's ultimately going to be an algorithm that's deciding what is and isn't hate speech.

 

[Hektor]

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

I meant this more in regards to what exactly Facebook etc. are required to do, since the internet generally doesn't tend to knew borders.

If there's an english post by an American person, would that comment have to be deleted in its entirety or only be blocked for German IP's for example.

 

[Xando]

Edit: this is why I'm concerned re: free speech, not because you should be free to yell hate speech but because it's ultimately going to be an algorithm that's deciding what is and isn't hate speech.

I see where you are coming from but hatespeech is defined by german law. And internet companies have largely been ignoring it.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Won't someone please thinks of the poors multibillionaire american companies?

Bunch of garbage tier silicon valley "liberals" ruined the world with their social incompetence.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

I meant this more in regards to what exactly Facebook etc. are required to do, since the internet generally doesn't tend to knew borders.

If there's an english post by an American person, would that comment have to be deleted in its entirety or only be blocked for German IP's for example.

I assume "hate speech" from non German IP's / Users will still be visible, but Facebook may have to be accounted for German users spreading hate speech/ fake news by sharing them or posting them themselves from German IP's.

I am ok with the big fines as smaller fines could just lead to FB and co. to pay the fine if the cost of moderating is higher, but not exactly sure how this can be enforced in an efficient way, so that only the hate speech that is defined by German law is deleted.

 

[Mahadev]

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.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's a great goal, but I don't understand what mechanism they expect these companies to use that aren't basically automated. 2 million or more users, potentially all posting multiple times a day, is beyond what's possible to manually moderate with humans.

Edit: this is why I'm concerned re: free speech, not because you should be free to yell hate speech but because it's ultimately going to be an algorithm that's deciding what is and isn't hate speech.

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.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I see where you are coming from but hatespeech is defined by german law. And internet companies have largely been ignoring it.

Yup - like I said, I'm on board with the goal, but there's no point making laws that are basically impossible not to break if you're operating in that jurisdiction. The alternative is, as has been suggested, basically turning off all comments in Germany, which is fine for Youtube and the like, but not Facebook or Instagram etc.

 

[Kölsch Bloot]

Very bad move.

Not because I'm an advocate of hate speech, but rather because this law isn't really thought trough & uses vague and undefined termes such as "fake news", which basically opens the dor to full scale censorship.

 

[oti]

Very bad move.

Not because I'm an advocate of hate speech, but rather because this law isn't really thought trough & uses vague and undefined termes such as "fake news", which basically opens the dor to full scale censorship.

It's a necessary first step. Of course it's not perfect.

 

[Nokterian]

Good luck with that..yes hate speech and fake news is a big no no. BUT this going to have ramifications towards what is hate speech and what to the end is freedom of speech? This can grow towards censorship.

Ask yourself a question where is the line when something can be banned or deleted and defined as hate speech and even it can sound sarcastic or anything else. This to me is very worrisome. Yes it needs to be fought but this is not always the solution.

People think this is so easy, but when the internet becomes in danger there is no point of return when a government can control on what you say what you think. That to me is more scarier because then you can have freedom of speech, you will think twice on what you say on social media no matter what it is.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Very bad move.

Not because I'm an advocate of hate speech, but rather because this law isn't really thought trough & uses vague and undefined termes such as "fake news", which basically opens the dor to full scale censorship.

I'm going to guess there will be some lawsuits back and forth to define the exact rules over time.

Good luck with that..yes hate speech and fake news is a big no no. BUT this going to have ramifications towards what is hate speech and what to the end is freedom of speech? This can grow towards censorship.

Ask yourself a question where is the line when something can be banned or deleted and defined as hate speech and even it can sound sarcastic or anything else. This to me is very worrisome. Yes it needs to be fought but this is not always the solution.

People think this is so easy, but when the internet becomes in danger there is no point of return when a government can control on what you say what you think. That to me is more scarier because then you can have freedom of speech, you will think twice on what you say on social media no matter what it is.

The problem is, there is also a point where the internet becomes in danger because we let the lunatics roam free without pushback, which has very real world consequences when they decide to target people or set a false narrative that will impact elections and such.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

If you post a story with no sources or basis in reality, it's fake news. If you have confirmation that a story is false and you persist, you're spreading fake news.

Pizza-gate was fake news. "Sandy hook was actors" is fake news. Getting rid of such posts is not censorship. You don't have a right to knowingly spread falsehoods, even in America.

 

[s_mirage]

It's a necessary first step. Of course it's not perfect.

You don't go in with woolly, overly broad definitions for a first step unless you want there to only be one step. Why tighten definitions if you don't have to? Sorry, but this is a bad idea; even with the best of intentions, loosely defined legislation is open to be abused in the future.

 

[Shiggy]

But it has already been condemned by human rights groups and industry representatives.

They claim the tight time limits are unrealistic, and will lead to accidental censorship as technology companies err on the side of caution and delete ambiguous posts to avoid paying penalties.

The bill is seen very critically.

 

[oti]

You don't go in with woolly, overly broad definitions for a first step unless you want there to be no other steps. Sorry, but this is a bad idea; even with the best of intentions, loosely defined legislation is open to be abused in the future.

It's a good idea.
The execution is going to be messy no matter what.
It's a first step.

 

[Kölsch Bloot]

It's a necessary first step. Of course it's not perfect.

Neccessary to combat hate speech, not fake news. And even that is a slippery slope. Current legislation is sufficiently vague in that regard, so how is a layman supposed to judge wether content is breaking the law or not?

Spoiler

(Not speaking ob the obvious ones like death threats etc.)

Companies are, undoubtedly, going to delete content that is protected by free speech in fear of being fined.

Also there is no definition of fake news. Again: how are those people to judge?

This law is just not well made and could have used more time to develop.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Whatever it takes to not end up like America.

 

[oti]

Neccessary to combat hate speech, not fake news. And even that is a slippery slope. Current legislation is sufficiently vague in that regard, so how is a layman supposed to judge wether content is breaking the law or not?

Spoiler

(Not speaking ob the obvious ones like death threats etc.)

Companies are, undoubtedly, going to delete content that is protected by free speech in fear of being fined.

Also there is no definition of fake news. Again: how are those people to judge?

This law is just not well made and could have used more time to develop.

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

 

[typist]

Probably necessary but it seems like defining hate speech and especially fake news can be quite tricky. There's always Obi Wan Kenobi truths about how "Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father," which is true "from a certain point of view." Lies and misdirection are definitely a problem which need to be addressed though. I'm interested if comments denying climate change and evolution will need to be removed under this law. To take things a step further, would religious comments need to be removed? "The Earth is only 6000 years old" or "gay sex is a sin and causes tornadoes" both seem like fake news to me. But then what about the "good news" that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven? That also seems like fake news to me (since the only evidence is hearsay) -- but it also happens to be the central dogma of Christianity.

Bit of a double standard too, if this law only applies to social media sites and not, y'know, regular media such as newspaper and television companies.

 

[Metal B]

Good luck with that..yes hate speech and fake news is a big no no. BUT this going to have ramifications towards what is hate speech and what to the end is freedom of speech? This can grow towards censorship.

Ask yourself a question where is the line when something can be banned or deleted and defined as hate speech and even it can sound sarcastic or anything else. This to me is very worrisome. Yes it needs to be fought but this is not always the solution.

People think this is so easy, but when the internet becomes in danger there is no point of return when a government can control on what you say what you think. That to me is more scarier because then you can have freedom of speech, you will think twice on what you say on social media no matter what it is.

Laws against "Hate Speech" isn't something new. In Germany it's a law for many decades and it worked to fight against discrimination. It just wasn't updated and enforced for the World Wide Web and it's a good change.

Bit of a double standard too, if this law only applies to social media sites and not, y'know, regular media such as newspaper and television companies.

Similar laws are not new in Germany, they just weren't enforced online.