Listen, you can laugh at it all you want but if they think it'll effect their bottom line they'll do it in a second.
Admittedly, I have not read the details of the law but you're suggesting that is only a one time fine?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Germany votes for 50m euro social media fines (Hate Speech, Fake news)
- Thread starter Kill Your Masters
- Start date
Listen, you can laugh at it all you want but if they think it'll effect their bottom line they'll do it in a second.
Admittedly, I have not read the details of the law but you're suggesting that is only a one time fine?
Muffin1611
Banned
Because it's not like there are oversensitive people out there that will see legit criticism as hate speech.
The slippery slope argument, as always.
We have the law for Volksverhetzung for decades, and I'm not aware of misuse of it. It's clearly doable.
No problem, something else will take its place.
ClosingADoor
Member
The problem here is the massive volume though. If we would bring every case to the courts, the system would overload. So new ways to combat this need to be found. And having the companies share responsibility over the content they allow on their platform is not a strange thing to do then.
Bitch Pudding
Member
I could also have gone with the "thisisnothowanyofthisworks.gif", because what you say, that't not how those businesses work, like, at all.
I could also have gone with the "thisisnothowanyofthisworks.gif", because what you say, that't not how those businesses work, like, at all.
Actually it does but your meme responses mean you may not understand that.
benjipwns
Banned
Nothing says finding human dignity important like throwing people in cages when they speak in ways the state doesn't like.
CadetMahoney
Member
The onus to ban a site would come from German government if no servers or corporate entities reside in Germany. Kinda like the UK ban has currently on porn with it's opt-in/out system, they just censor themselves from it, they don't make the American based entities do anything.
Facebook will not leave money on the table though. They love that data.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
What's the context here?
Hate speech belongs in jail.
Facebook has been dumping huge amounts into the problem recently but it's a hard problem. But it's interesting a few politicians in a country of 80 million have any idea what it takes to regulate a platform of 2 billion. I think it's still going to be a problem because it just doesn't work like this.
hobblygobbly
Member
Companies don't and won't do it because of how massive the European market is for them, and Germany and Russia are two of the largest markets in Europe for most things in general too.
It's like the issue with Valve concerning Steam in the past, Valve had no choice but to buckle concerning the EU law, that or they don't operate in their biggest market at all.
As a result now pretty everyone worldwide gets to enjoy the benefits concerning Steam's change in policy concerning refunds.
CyclopsRock
Member
Right, but implicit in this is that it'll lower the qaulity bar for judgements. They take a long time to go through all the courts, the appeals etc but, due to the checks and balances and various different judges, you almost always get a just decision. Implicit in the "large scale, must go faster" mentality is that these layers and checks and balances disappear and it basically becomes up to Facebook to decide what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I agree responsibility needs to be shared, though, I just don't know what a good way of doing it is. Generally speaking I think the state that makes the laws should be responsible for enforcing them.
One is a much easier thing to change than the other.
Those forms of media didn't have to deal with 2 billion monthly users.
I honestly don't think it's possible for Facebook to delete every single piece of hate speech or fake news.
Then they have to find a way to make it work. It should not be the job of the government to solve the problems of a company. There job is to defend the country and there people from harm.
Imagine a company sells a product, which has a 1/5 chance of making somebody terrible ill, and the company would simply say, it's TOO HARD to find a secure solution, still wanting to sell their products and have the government find a way to make the product save in some way. Does this sounds reasonable?
ClosingADoor
Member
Thing is, before when you would sue a medium for it, it is mostly about a single publication. On Facebook it is day in, day out stuff that gets repeated and published again and again. So swifter action is needed.
If it isn't possible for Facebook to manage their users, then they should change the way they work, because that clearly isn't a healthy thing for your company.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
Holocaust denial is fake news and against German law for example. Would have no problem if that was enforced on Facebook etc.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I hope they do that in Canada.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Hate speech is not covered by German freedom of speech, so well done. They had five years where they could do it voluntarily, they refused, now they pay the price. Companies like Facebook only act when it costs them otherwise. And no, it is simple to implement a filter. Google managed to filter all of Youtube for Germans when they did not want to pay GEMA, tagging hate speech and simply making it invisible for German users is easy. There will be some false positives and some missed ones, but those can be removed by hand.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It isn't just Facebook who are responsible. It is great if they are, I hope the companies potentially impacted work with the government to ensure there are sensible attitudes towards applying the fines.
You are right that it is a difficult to resolve problem, but it was caused by a lack of regulation. Fines are needed to motivate those responsible to keep working on it.
They would either have to shrink their user base, hire more people, or create effective bots to police themselves.
That's just of the top of my head, and all seem impractical. AI isn't advanced enough, you'd need a stupid number of people, or kill a massive source of revenue.
I suppose if they limited their functions to just Germany it'd be easier, but that's still a monumental task even for Facebook.
BrutishMrFish
Member
Good thing the law doesn't do that then.
ClosingADoor
Member
How is hiring more people a problem for a massive multibillion dollar corporation? And how is developing technical solutions a problem for a tech company?
benjipwns
Banned
Context? I am merely a freedom of speech supporter. That's all. I consider liberty most conducive to human dignity.
What law? I was responding to this statement:
There has to be a limit to freedom or some people will use their freedom to undermine the freedom of others. That's why, we don't life in anarchies, since most of us would be dead!
Ultimate freedom is a noble thought, but reality and human nature make it into a nightmare.
Hari Seldon
Member
What they should do is ban Germans from typing anything, and just give them a long list of like pre approved things that they can say. Like emojis only entire pre approved comments lol.
The hate speech ban, from a technical perspective, is probably fairly easy to machine learn and get rid of. But fake news, by its very nature, is impossible. And it is way too easily abused for political gain. This is just a bad law.
Thats not germanys problem. If you want to do business there you have to follow their laws
BrutishMrFish
Member
In context, that statement was clearly in response to another post that mentioned why the law described in the OP wouldn't pass in the US. Since the law purely focuses on fining companies, it's a leap to suggest that it would end up with the state jailing people.
CyclopsRock
Member
Swifter action probably is needed, but I don't think it's fair to say "Facebook, work it out. If you don't, we'll fine you." These people are legislators, and this legislation is a de facto outsourcing of the law to Facebook.
If they want to have a sort of fast-tracked legal system (sort of like we have for speeding fines and stuff like that) then they should make a body that does this, or at least a framework defining how it works, because the implication of Facebook removing a post is that someone's broken the law. I don't think they should make Facebook be that body, enforcing rules that Facebook makes up, on Facebook's platform.
God Dayumm
Banned
CNN must be trembling
Muffin1611
Banned
After your logic that freedom of speech is absolute, libel and slander laws should also not exist.
Allowing one freedom to undermine anything else is foolish and not practical at all. You're purely talking ideology.
benjipwns
Banned
I disagree.
Oh cool, then they can just not pay the fines then.
We had to limit freedom in order to prevent it I guess.
I agree completely, you have no right to use violence to demand others maintain in their minds a certain reputation of your choosing.
Hari Seldon
Member
If I was a tinfoil hate person I would say that the German government wants complete control over political speech. The hate speech thing is the "think of the children" part when what they really want is to control "fake news", which as we see with Trump is literally any news that the current ruling party disagrees with.
hobblygobbly
Member
Hate speech is about having consequences for freedom of speech that impedes the rights and dignity of a group that is targeted.
Hate speech is also very explicitly and clearly defined as what constitutes it in pretty much every country that has it, it has nothing to do with things such as political beliefs or criticism of the government, but of things pertaining to ethnic groups for example.
Freedom of speech in countries without hate speech laws gives people the freedom without consequence to trample on the dignity and rights of others.
That's what is meant by it not being an absolute. Laissez-faire freedom of speech is dangerous concerning the tyranny of the majority.
Muffin1611
Banned
I can't take this much naivety.
We have real life demonstrations of what hate speech and fake news do to a democracy. I simply can't.
We have real life demonstrations of what hate speech and fake news do to a democracy. I simply can't.
A knife can kill a few people, words can kill millions.
ClosingADoor
Member
Why should the government solve Facebook's problems? The government wants to see the hate speech go away, since it is against the law. Facebook is allowing hate speech to spread. Then Facebook needs to come up with a solution for that.
I rather not the German taxpayer would be on the hook for solving an issue Facebook has created.
The implication of Facebook removing a post is not that it has broken the law. It is that Facebook thinks allowing it up will put them in danger of breaking the law. Only a judge can make the ruling if it was actually illegal. But this way, Facebook has incentive to actually remove things without everything being forwarded to the courts who can not be expected to handle every comment placed on there.
Tons of organisations that can take the government to court if that was the case. Also, the law only goes into effect after the election, so it would be a pretty bad conspiracy.
benjipwns
Banned
Nonsense. Not being punished by the state does not imply freedom from consequences of your actions.
This makes no sense. Is it not the "majority" that is using force to impose those "consequences" on the speech it dislikes? Or are we assuming away democratic control of the government as well in our exception carving path through the rights of the minority in the name of protecting the minority?
CertifiedFP
Member
Are these genuine Human Rights Groups, or are they like America's "Free Speech Groups"?
ShironRedshift
Member
And of course this goes for not just hate speech, but also fake news/conspiracy garbage. One of the most clear cut examples being anti-vaccine garbage, leading stuff like measles and pertussis to start making reappearances in places they were wiped out for decades, and god knows what's next if those people continue to spread their garbage. That kind of thing has a direct impact even on those who don't read it, due to the effect not vaccinating their kids and convincing others to do the same has on other children. That's something that's completely unacceptable and there has to be some way of dealing it and stopping it in its tracks, less it continue unabated. "True" freedom of speech ain't worth easily preventable deaths like that. Just being completely laissez faire about freedom of speech has consequences which I can't possibly be comfortable with.
Muffin1611
Banned
In your happy-go-lucky imagination of reality maybe.
In practice, it very much does.
ClosingADoor
Member
What have the consequences been for 99,9999999% of the people putting hate speech online? Nothing. The websites don't even ban them.
CyclopsRock
Member
But Anti-Vaxxer stuff isn't fake news. Fake news is when people knowingly present a false story with the intention of convincing people it's real for whatever reason (political gain, the lulz etc). That's not anti-vaxxer stuff at all. Those people sharing it genuinely believe it. The doctor who first made the (false) link between the MMR jab and autism also genuinely believed it (even if he later recanted).
"Fake News" isn't the same as "People Being Wrong." You can't really legislate against the latter except in very exceptional circumstances eg holocaust denial, and even that's legal status in Germany is very controversial due to the impact it has on the ability to debate about it. OK, it's mostly only mad people who deny the holocaust but the idea that the government should have a list of things where it says "Even discussing this is illegal" is so self-evidently terrifying that it doesn't bear thinking about. If Facebook wants to ban anti-vaxxer stuff from their website, they're within their rights, but I wouldn't want to see a government literally make it illegal to post news articles about incorrect science.
benjipwns
Banned
So if people aren't being violently attacked by thugs they aren't facing consequences for their actions? Well, okay I suppose that's one way to go about things.
But I don't think it's one that holds human dignity very important.
Are you suggesting that people should be imprisoned for reading and believing things that are wrong?
Lots of very renown organisations, two of which should also be known internationally:
Wikimedia / Reporters Without Borders
And many more here:
http://deklaration-fuer-meinungsfreiheit.de
It was also criticised by the "UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-DEU-1-2017.pdf) and even the legal experts of the German Parliament, which give advice to the parliament on the legality of laws, believe the law is not complying with European law.
Muffin1611
Banned
So you're picking some alt-right nuts that got beaten to make a point about how the vast majority of people engaging in hate speech and racism are all properly facing consequences?
One waterproof argument you have there.
ShironRedshift
Member
Indeed. Ideally, such laws would not be needed and the social contract and societal consequences would do the work. However, we don't live in an ideal world and when most people hear about someone they know engaging in hate speech they either:
1.) Are too scared to speak up in any meaningful way and thus don't engage in any particular action.
2.) Are completely indifferent to the situation and feel it's not any of their business.
3.) Actively agree with such individuals.
Those who are all:
a.) concerned by such remarks
b.) have to courage to actually speak up and say something about them
c.) have the ability to inflict some degree of societal consequences that have the potential of actually changing behavior
are in far too few a number to be effectively in lobbying meaningful consequences. Thus, the necessity of the government/law needing to get involved, because the social contract by itself is clearly not doing much to stop it. The entire history of the United States is a case of point in that--things only change in the face of either violent action or laws/the courts getting involved and using their power to force a societal change. Till such an event occur, things either continue unabated or get worse. The "free market" approach to truly unabated free speech is a complete failure, and the entire history of the United States is the strongest evidence you could possibly find.
benjipwns
Banned
Huh? What alt-right nuts? What are you talking about?
Despite the clarity of the First Amendment, the United States has never had "unabated free speech."
Similar threads
- Locked