Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

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.

Do you genuinely believe that Facebook has created the problem of hate speech and fake news?

I don't think it is Facebook's problem. You're making it Facebook's problem by saying that they're responsible for everything that's posted on their site, despite them having no editorial control over it. It's also easy to say that the state makes the laws, people break the laws, and the state has a responsibility to apply the law to those people. But the reality is that - if people are actually interested in halting hate speech and overtly fake news - that there has to be some compromise in the middle. Facebook have to work with governments to try and remove this content as quickly as possible but it must be the government's that actually define how this decision is made. The people of Germany didn't vote for Mark Zuckerberg, they voted for the legislators - it's their responsibility to decide what gets removed and what doesn't in a way that Facebook can actually implement (ie don't say "fake news and hate speech, dummy", but rather some actually specific guidelines that Facebook can follow). And if a person puts up a post saying "Niggers ruin everything, let's all burn them", it's that person that's broken the law, not Facebook. This law isn't making it Facebook that's broken the law. It's still that person. What this law is doing is making it illegal for Facebook not to remove it. That's a separate crime to the actual hate speech - so when you say "It is that Facebook thinks allowing it up will put them in danger of breaking the law" it's not true.

The idea of the German people having to pony up to enforce the laws that its government decides isn't a crazy one. It's how all the other laws work.

 

[Muffin1611]

Huh? What alt-right nuts?

Which people do you mean then? Where did I say that I want people engaging in hate speech get violently attacked?

I was of the impression that you were making an example about people like Spencer etc.

 

[Coriolanus]

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

Absolute freedom of speech never existed or worked. Our fleshy appendages simply do not support it.

 

[benjipwns]

Absolute freedom of speech never existed or worked. Our fleshy appendages simply do not support it.

The right to freedom of speech has always existed and always works. Sometimes it is suppressed by violent corporate entities but it remains a human right nonetheless. Just like all the others.

Which people do you mean then? Where did I say that I want people engaging in hate speech get violently attacked?

I was of the impression that you were making an example about people like Spencer etc.

Here are our posts:

Nonsense. Not being punished by the state does not imply freedom from consequences of your actions.

In your happy-go-lucky imagination of reality maybe.

In practice, it very much does.

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.

Being punished by the state for enjoying a basic human right is usually in the form of being violent attacked by thugs. It's all it knows generally.

 

[Muffin1611]

Here are our posts:



Being punished by the state for enjoying a basic human right is usually in the form of being violent attacked by thugs. It's all it knows generally.

What are you even on about. The law is decades old. You get a fine or in harsh cases of spreading hate speech systematically in droves you get jail time.

Instead of making claims you could link me the evidence that German police is attacking citizens physically because of hate speech.

You're giving the impression that you're completely dismissing real life consequences of your ideologic views if they would be in action and also assuming things about countries you apparently don't know much about.

 

[Izuna]

Germany winning again

 

[CyclopsRock]

What are you even on about. The law is decades old. You get a fine or in harsh cases of spreading hate speech systematically in droves you get jail time.

Instead of making claims you could link me the evidence that German police is attacking citizens physically because of hate speech.

He's taking the state having a monopoly on force to its logical conclusion.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

That's horrible.

 

[Muffin1611]

He's taking the state having a monopoly on force to its logical conclusion.

That logical conclusion must be taking centuries then, since nothing of note happened so far in decades.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

He's taking the state having a monopoly on force to its logical conclusion.

So it's a slippery slope?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Do you genuinely believe that Facebook has created the problem of hate speech and fake news?

I don't think it is Facebook's problem. You're making it Facebook's problem by saying that they're responsible for everything that's posted on their site, despite them having no editorial control over it. It's also easy to say that the state makes the laws, people break the laws, and the state has a responsibility to apply the law to those people. But the reality is that - if people are actually interested in halting hate speech and overtly fake news - that there has to be some compromise in the middle. Facebook have to work with governments to try and remove this content as quickly as possible but it must be the government's that actually define how this decision is made. The people of Germany didn't vote for Mark Zuckerberg, they voted for the legislators - it's their responsibility to decide what gets removed and what doesn't in a way that Facebook can actually implement (ie don't say "fake news and hate speech, dummy", but rather some actually specific guidelines that Facebook can follow). And if a person puts up a post saying "Niggers ruin everything, let's all burn them", it's that person that's broken the law, not Facebook. This law isn't making it Facebook that's broken the law. It's still that person. What this law is doing is making it illegal for Facebook not to remove it. That's a separate crime to the actual hate speech - so when you say "It is that Facebook thinks allowing it up will put them in danger of breaking the law" it's not true.

The idea of the German people having to pony up to enforce the laws that its government decides isn't a crazy one. It's how all the other laws work.

But Facebook is the platform that has allowed these things to be published. They have control over what gets published. If I upload some porn on my account, that stuff gets removed.

Germany has given Facebook and others time to clean up their act, but they didn't. How else are we going to force them to do something if we don't make laws about it with fines attached to breaking them. They break the law by allowing these things to be published on their platform. They can't just go "not my responsibility". They have a ton of systems to remove things already that are illegal, like copyrighted stuff, child porn, etc. So how come with this subject, we suddenly can't expect Facebook to police its own content, while with the others we can?

Hate speech has guidelines, since those are used in courts also. And for fake news, what I read it is mostly about defamation, calling for violence, etc, those clear illegal things. Is there a text of the law around somewhere that describes the fake news bit?

 

[benjipwns]

What are you even on about. The law is decades old. You get a fine or in harsh cases of spreading hate speech systematically in droves you get jail time.

Instead of making claims you could link me the evidence that German police is attacking citizens physically because of hate speech.

You're giving the impression that you're completely dismissing real life consequences of your ideologic views if they would be in action and also assuming things about countries you apparently don't know much about.

Again, I'm not talking about any specific law or any country, you don't even know what countries I do and do not know anything about, I mean just as an aside I read, write and speak German but fairly terribly I should note.

That said, what I was responding to was a post that was making an absolutist statement, that freedom of speech cannot be allowed ever. Sure, it's in this thread about Germany and specific laws and proposals are being discussed but the statement I replied to was not a qualified statement it was an absolutist one that stated that people should not be allowed the freedom part of freedom of speech. I disagreed because I disagree with that view, I support freedom of speech, which implies that you are not facing state imposed consequences for your speech as that's how it's always been construed by liberal thought.

Now, in this very post of yours you have confirmed my very statement regarding caging minorities through violence. As incarcerating people would require the German police to physically attack citizens. Especially if they resisted their basic human rights being suppressed simply because they are a minority.

 

[CyclopsRock]

That logical conclusion must be taking centuries then, since nothing of note happened so far in decades.

Well, of course it has. If you don't pay your fine, the state will cart you off to prison. If you resist, they'll hit you til you do. He's basically using "thugs beating you" as a rhetorical device to describe the state having a monopoly on force, as I said.

But Facebook is the platform that has allowed these things to be published. They have control over what gets published. If I upload some porn on my account, that stuff gets removed.

Germany has given Facebook and others time to clean up their act, but they didn't. How else are we going to force them to do something if we don't make laws about it with fines attached to breaking them. They break the law by allowing these things to be published on their platform. They can't just go "not my responsibility". They have a ton of systems to remove things already that are illegal, like copyrighted stuff, child porn, etc. So how come with this subject, we suddenly can't expect Facebook to police its own content, while with the others we can?

Hate speech has guidelines, since those are used in courts also. And for fake news, what I read it is mostly about defamation, calling for violence, etc, those clear illegal things. Is there a text of the law around somewhere that describes the fake news bit?

"Clean up their act" is an uncharitable way of describing the situation. I think what the German government is asking for isn't possible and it's expecting Facebook staff to get to the bottom of what is and isn't fake news and hate crimes. I think that if the German government wants to make the activities of potentially millions of people's online activity illegal, it needs to come up with something better than "you sort it out".

Surely you can see why hate crimes and fake news isn't the same as child porn and copyright, no?

 

[benjipwns]

Surely you can see why hate crimes and fake news isn't the same as child porn and copyright, no?

And NOW we gotta talk about the violence backed monopoly that is copyright!

Spoiler

I keed, I won't go there

 

[ClosingADoor]

"Clean up their act" is an uncharitable way of describing the situation. I think what the German government is asking for isn't possible and it's expecting Facebook staff to get to the bottom of what is and isn't fake news and hate crimes. I think that if the German government wants to make the activities of potentially millions of people's online activity illegal, it needs to come up with something better than "you sort it out".

Surely you can see why hate crimes and fake news isn't the same as child porn and copyright, no?

It is different, sure. But it both falls within the things Facebook needs to remove from their network. They can do one, yet you say they can't be expected to do the other.

Why is it impossible for Facebook to delete hate speech from their platform? Let's put aside the fake news bit for now, since I haven't yet seen any text from the law that specifically calls for that, it seems to be more targeted at hate speech, calls for violence and defamation.

If Facebook offers those people a platform for their illegal activities, why can't we expect Facebook to prevent that?

 

[Coriolanus]

The right to freedom of speech has always existed and always works. Sometimes it is suppressed by violent corporate entities but it remains a human right nonetheless. Just like all the others.

Same can be said of the right to freedom of locomotion, and yet one (usually) doesn't argue that freedom of locomotion doesn't work if one can't go to some places.

 

[Muffin1611]

Again, I'm not talking about any specific law or any country, you don't even know what countries I do and do not know anything about, I mean just as an aside I read, write and speak German but fairly terribly I should note.

I said you give the impression. Which you still do, whether you write and speak German or not.

That said, what I was responding to was a post that was making an absolutist statement, that freedom of speech cannot be allowed ever. Sure, it's in this thread about Germany and specific laws and proposals are being discussed but the statement I replied to was not a qualified statement it was an absolutist one that stated that people should not be allowed the freedom part of freedom of speech. I disagreed because I disagree with that view, I support freedom of speech, which implies that you are not facing state imposed consequences for your speech as that's how it's always been construed by liberal thought.

And I'm saying that what you're entertaining as vision for freedom of speech is an incredibly absolutist statement not rooted in reality.

Restrictions are needed, and while you were saying that absolute freedom of speech always works, I would argue that we currently have the best reasons before our eyes why it doesn't. And I'm pretty sure that most people on this board would agree with me.

Now, in this very post of yours you have confirmed my very statement regarding caging minorities through violence. As incarcerating people would require the German police to physically attack citizens. Especially if they resisted their basic human rights being suppressed simply because they are a minority.

What is this minority nonsense? Sure, they are a minority. But are they a minority worth to be protected in this specific regard? No, I would think not. Since they do their best to make the life for actual minorities in need of protection a living hell.

Talking about protecting minorities when you're specifically enabling minorities being treated like subhumans sounds incredibly dishonest to me.


That's all I'm going to say in regards to this. I don't see how your view is rooted in reality whatsoever.

 

[benjipwns]

Same can be said of the right to freedom of locomotion, and yet one (usually) doesn't argue that freedom of locomotion doesn't work if one can't go to some places.

Yes, freedom of movement is sadly horribly violated on the regular and increasingly so it seems based on arbitrary impermanent and not actually existing lines.

Restrictions are needed, and while you were saying that absolute freedom of speech always works, I would argue that we currently have the best reasons before our eyes why it doesn't.

That would be an interesting argument considering there is nowhere on the planet that respects freedom of speech in what you would call the absolute form.

And I'm pretty sure that most people on this board would agree with me.

lol who gives a flying fuck what the reactionary conservative firebrands that dominate much of this forum think about the notion of individual rights? It's regularly obvious that many of the most vocal would rather see their perceived enemies violently crushed by their favorite corporations lest someone enjoy their liberties in a way the prohibitionists find uncouth.

I know that's "reality" but I really don't care.

But are they a minority worth to be protected in this specific regard? No, I would think not.

And as I said this is where we differ and I wasn't going to try and change your or anyones mind, I simply think the rights of all individuals are worth being respected and/or protecting. No picking and choosing. And it certainly should not be up to a borderline arbitrary corporation to decide (especially entirely on its own) which individuals should and should not have their human rights violently violated.

And most especially over something as essential to safeguard as communication and thought.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It is different, sure. But it both falls within the things Facebook needs to remove from their network. They can do one, yet you say they can't be expected to do the other.

Why is it impossible for Facebook to delete hate speech from their platform? Let's put aside the fake news bit for now, since I haven't yet seen any text from the law that specifically calls for that, it seems to be more targeted at hate speech, calls for violence and defamation.

If Facebook offers those people a platform for their illegal activities, why can't we expect Facebook to prevent that?

Well they do already - this isn't Reddit refusing to shut down the_donald for years - the question is whether they can do it faster than they currently do. It's much harder than copyright, which has some fairly sophisticated but ultimately non-intervention-requiring tools (they can scan a video for matching video sequences or audio and automatically remove them). Child porn is harder but it's niche and it gets almost immediately reported by users. Hate speech is much harder, because ever courts have a difficult time deciding exactly what is and what isn't hate speech. A UK cabinet minister made a speech at a conference that was later forwarded to the police for investigation as a hate crime. They ended up not pressing charges, but it required a police investigation to ascertain this. I'm also pretty sure that none of what she said would show up in a filter for certain words, either. The point, though, is that clearly some people thought it was hate speech. The police decided it wasn't, but part of their training and their role is to ascertain if a conviction can be achieved for a given charge - and even then, one in five cases that the crown prosecution service (the UK's equivalent of a district attorney, I guess) takes to court don't result in a conviction.

Placing this burden on Facebook seems like it's obviously going to result in Facebook being heavy handed with it, because it has a lot of money at risk if it's judgement is wrong and it has no decent way of knowing, beyond the extremes in either direction, whether something can be considered illegal or not. That's what court cases are for, but they're essentially being swept under the rug here.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Aren't youtube and google doing enough already to support the leftist propaganda?

 

[The Jackdog]

Aren't youtube and google doing enough already to support the leftist propaganda?

what?

 

[Maintenance]

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

Fox News would go broke within a week.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Since we can all interact with Germans on any social media platform doesn't this apply to the whole world? I'm no lawyer but it seems like it would.

 

[Easy_D]

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.

Isn't there a line in the ToS where you essentially abandon the rigths to anything you post on Facebook (updates, pictures etc)? Does that not make them responsible for what is and isn't posted?

 

[Octavia]

Does this mean all flat earther videos on youtube will be removed?

"This video has violated the terms of service on the grounds of: Fake News"

 

[WorriedCitizen]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

 

[Christhor]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

That wouldn't be too surprising. Probably the same with evolution in a lot of countries too.

 

[darkinstinct]

that freedom of speech cannot be allowed ever

This might come as a shock for you: Freedom of speech doesn't even apply here, because it happens on Facebook's pages. Everything has to happen according to their house rules, not under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that is granted in public, not on websites.

It just so happens that Facebook's rules of we accept everything violate German law. That's it.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

Free speech led to Trump. How did that work out so far for minorities? Yeah, maybe you should try to fix your own shit.

 

[darkinstinct]

Does this mean all flat earther videos on youtube will be removed?

"This video has violated the terms of service on the grounds of: Fake News"

That's a belief, not news. If however somebody would post a video stating somebody died because he fell off the end of the world and it never happened, sure. I mean the idea of fake news is not that hard to understand, is it? "Refugees raped five children". Those are the kind of fake news this law is up against.

 

[kingkaiser]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

By this "logic" any crime being prosecuted could give other countries an excuse for draconic punishments like death sentences.

 

[Mael]

Guess that's it for Germany-based Breitbart spinoff...

 

[gamma]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

"this law is horrible because some other country will make a different law"

 

[Kill Your Masters]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

Those countries exist already.

 

[Easy_D]

"this law is horrible because some other country will make a different law"

And the countries that would make such laws already have them implemented (for the most part, I don't think the US has blasphemy laws yet)

 

[EdibleKnife]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

Other countries basically don't even need to copy laws to spread Anti-LGBTQ propaganda and incorporate it into the government's mission statement to sanction the internment and deaths of homosexual citizens. Countries that want to take away speech, rights, and lives are already doing it without copying.

 

[Albino_Yeti]

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.

Great post. Agree 100 percent.

 

[Micael]

Isn't there a line in the ToS where you essentially abandon the rigths to anything you post on Facebook (updates, pictures etc)? Does that not make them responsible for what is and isn't posted?

Wouldn't really matter, ToS doesn't really have a legal value, the only thing a ToS could be used for is to show intent.

 

[MUnited83]

This law is horrible. Everyone who thinks this is good is really shortsighted. Let's see if you still think it's great when some other countries copy this approach to curb down on blasphemy, "gay propaganda" or whatever.

That's a pretty dumb statement.
"The whole prison system as a concept is horrible because some countries will use prisons to imprisionate innocent people"

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

Free speech led to Trump. How did that work out so far for minorities? Yeah, maybe you should try to fix your own shit.

Gotta rush to defend white supremacy at the expense of the freedom and well being of minorities, its as American as apple pie.

This country really is rotten to its core but hey look at Germany now, one of the biggest bastions of actual democracy in the world, maybe there's hope for us yet.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

How would this affect satire, like Onion?

 

[Hydrus]

Can they fine prank videos and "social experiments" while they're at it?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well they do already - this isn't Reddit refusing to shut down the_donald for years - the question is whether they can do it faster than they currently do. It's much harder than copyright, which has some fairly sophisticated but ultimately non-intervention-requiring tools (they can scan a video for matching video sequences or audio and automatically remove them). Child porn is harder but it's niche and it gets almost immediately reported by users. Hate speech is much harder, because ever courts have a difficult time deciding exactly what is and what isn't hate speech. A UK cabinet minister made a speech at a conference that was later forwarded to the police for investigation as a hate crime. They ended up not pressing charges, but it required a police investigation to ascertain this. I'm also pretty sure that none of what she said would show up in a filter for certain words, either. The point, though, is that clearly some people thought it was hate speech. The police decided it wasn't, but part of their training and their role is to ascertain if a conviction can be achieved for a given charge - and even then, one in five cases that the crown prosecution service (the UK's equivalent of a district attorney, I guess) takes to court don't result in a conviction.

Placing this burden on Facebook seems like it's obviously going to result in Facebook being heavy handed with it, because it has a lot of money at risk if it's judgement is wrong and it has no decent way of knowing, beyond the extremes in either direction, whether something can be considered illegal or not. That's what court cases are for, but they're essentially being swept under the rug here.

But now you are again saying things like "it's harder." Why do I care if it is harder? They are a multibillion dollar company. They can hire a ton of people and give them training to identify hate speech under German law.

Of course there is risk of them deleting stuff that shouldn't be deleted. As is there of them not deleting some stuff. That is obvious. And there will be discussion about this over time, maybe even some lawsuits to more clearly define the law.

But that does not mean they should continue to sit back and do nothing, because let's be honest, the efforts made so far by social networks to stop hate speech and harassment have been laughable at best.

How would this affect satire, like Onion?

Not, why would it?

 

[Metal B]

How would this affect satire, like Onion?

Satire isn't hate speech, unless it is.

 

[felipeko]

But now you are again saying things like "it's harder." Why do I care if it is harder? They are a multibillion dollar company. They can hire a ton of people and give them training to identify hate speech under German law.

Of course there is risk of them deleting stuff that shouldn't be deleted. As is there of them not deleting some stuff. That is obvious. And there will be discussion about this over time, maybe even some lawsuits to more clearly define the law.

But that does not mean they should continue to sit back and do nothing, because let's be honest, the efforts made so far by social networks to stop hate speech and harassment have been laughable at best.


Not, why would it?

Why should Facebook play German police?

If someone is breaking the law, shouldn't it be law enforcement problem?

Germany is a trillion dollar country, sure it can hide a ton of people and give them training to identify hate speech?

Of course there's a risk of them taking to court innocent people. That does not mean they should continue to sit back and wait for a company to do their job, because let's be honest, the efforts made so far by countries to stop people using hate speech has been laughable at best.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Satire isn't hate speech, unless it is.

Was thinking more about fake news.

 

[jstripes]

What I find amusing is that Twitter has a secret "Nazi filter" that hides Nazi accounts in Germany and France, where they are illegal, but nowhere else in the world. Not even an option to activate it.

 

[KDR_11k]

Why should Facebook play German police?

If someone is breaking the law, shouldn't it be law enforcement problem?

What prompted this was that law enforcement was reporting hate speech (of a level that would warrant an arrest) to Facebook and FB would just say it's not against their community standards and leave it up. This was supposed to give law enforcement leverage on Facebook.

Of course trust politicians to go completely overboard.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I hope facebook finally does something and stops the hate speech from being viewed in Germany, they've been dragging their feet for too long. Not doing anything. Imagine another couple years from now and with nothing happening.

 

[Xando]

What I find amusing is that Twitter has a secret "Nazi filter" that hides Nazi accounts in Germany and France, where they are illegal, but nowhere else in the world. Not even an option to activate it.

As a german i can assure you this is not true.
Plenty of Nazis on Twitter.