Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

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.

Why shouldn't Facebook make sure their users are following the law? They provide them wit a platform.

Should Youtube just leave everything up and then we go after every individual to get something offline. Should websites not remove comments that have illegal content?

Why are people arguing for protecting these large corporation that are not taking responsibility for the content they allow on their networks?

Was thinking more about fake news.

Can someone point me to the actual part of the law that has this thing about fake news in it? Because I see most outlets reporting that it is just about hate speech, inciting violence and defamation. Basically, making sure that these online companies start following laws that are already enforced offline.

 

[Muffin1611]

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.

Lol. The amount of people denying the holocaust or saying WW2 was the jews fault on Twitter doesn't attest to that.

The fact that after reporting these people those tweets were deemed not a break of the rules just adds to that.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Here's how social media moderating should work.

Obvious stuff such as racial slurs = auto moderation review.

Keep track of number of shares via explicit sharing as well as posts that basically contain the same content.
Once it exceeds 10k shares examine post for info about public figures, public entities, or suggestions of criminal activity = moderation review.
Once it exceeds 100k shares or views = review regardless of content.

Keep track of sources constantly posting hateful or fake news. Blatant repeat offenders = auto deny of posting content if someone uses that source.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

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"

False equivalence and you and the others who quoted me are missing the point entirely. It's about the precedence it sets for a new way of censorship. So far countries have restricted access to certain websites like it often happens in Turkey or China for example.
This law however is about forcing the social media providers to do the censoring for them.

Is it so difficult to grasp that the exact law with a few words exchanged could be arbitrarely applied to blasphemy or any kind of political dissent?

 

[Basketball]

I don't care either way but don't these sites like Facebook , twitch , Twitter etc

Have things were you can block,ignore people if they say dumb shit. I wonder how they will police it ... Maybe robot detection.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Good, fuck Facebook and all of these lazy social media idiots. I can guarantee you if the FCC and other institutions passed rules which made these social media companies enforce their own TOS these sites would clean up mighty quickly. It's just these companies are too lazy to hire people to properly enforce their rules.

 

[felipeko]

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.

If that was the case, the law should just give them leverage to have the posts removed, not make it Facebook's responsibility to judge hate speech.

Why shouldn't Facebook make sure their users are following the law? They provide them wit a platform.

Should Youtube just leave everything up and then we go after every individual to get something offline. Should websites not remove comments that have illegal content?

Why are people arguing for protecting these large corporation that are not taking responsibility for the content they allow on their networks?

Because Facebook is not law enforcement, if they are not encouraging the users to break the law, why should Facebook be the one to do anything about it?

Websites should remove comments that have illegal content when it can be easily identified as illegal content. That can happen in two ways:
1- Law enforcement/copyright owner reporting
2- When the illegal concept is so well defined that a machine can do it

Anything other it is not responsibility of the platform, or else the platform is unfeasible.

It's like asking for a car manufacturer to not allow cars to run over pedestrians.They sure can do it, after all, they are a multi billion dollar company, they can hire a lot of people to stay by the drivers side or they can just engineer a slow enough car that is unable to do it.
That's essentially what Germany is asking of Facebook.

 

[perfectchaos007]

The definition of hate speech is so hard to define and draw the line. In theory its a good thing to eliminate hate speech but its going to be subjective which could cause issues.

 

[Xando]

The definition of hate speech is so hard to define and draw the line. In theory its a good thing to eliminate hate speech but its going to be subjective which could cause issues.

It’s pretty clear defined in the german constitution.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Because Facebook is not law enforcement, if they are not encouraging the users to break the law, why should Facebook be the one to do anything about it?

Websites should remove comments that have illegal content when it can be easily identified as illegal content. That can happen in two ways:
1- Law enforcement/copyright owner reporting
2- When the illegal concept is so well defined that a machine can do it

Anything other it is not responsibility of the platform.

It's like asking for a car manufacturer to not allow cars to run over pedestrians.They sure can do it, after all, they are a multi billion dollar company, they can hire a lot of people to stay by the drivers side or they can just engineer a slow enough car that is unable to do it.
That's essentially what Germany is asking of Facebook.

You make some very strange comparison there that I don't really follow.

A ton of content on Facebook is easily identified as hate speech, inciting violence, defamation, etc. Things that are illegal. Why can't we expect the company running the platform then to keep their users in check and delete those things?

Should we also allow harassment on these platforms and the victim should just go to the police and try to get all those people to court somehow. Or should we say: Facebook, Twitter, Google, how about you don't open the doors for people displaying horrible and illegal behavior.

The definition of hate speech is so hard to define and draw the line. In theory its a good thing to eliminate hate speech but its going to be subjective which could cause issues.

And over time those lines will be more clearly defined probably. Just like with any law that leaves some room for interpretation.

 

[felipeko]

You make some very strange comparison there that I don't really follow.

A ton of content on Facebook is easily identified as hate speech, inciting violence, defamation, etc. Things that are illegal. Why can't we expect the company running the platform then to keep their users in check and delete those things?

Should we also allow harassment on these platforms and the victim should just go to the police and try to get all those people to court somehow. Or should we say: Facebook, Twitter, Google, how about you don't open the doors for people displaying horrible and illegal behavior.

You don't see to grasp the scale that Facebook/Twitter/Google operate:

Every 60 seconds on Facebook: 510,000 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded

How do you humanly filter through 510,000 comments every minute to know if there's a illegal thing in there?
Hint: it isn't humanly possible.

So why should you expect something that is not humanly possible from a company?

 

[Harmen]

I commend them for at least taking steps to address this massive issue, though I wonder how difficult this will be in practice. But still, you got to start somewhere.

 

[ClosingADoor]

You don't see to grasp the scale that Facebook/Twitter/Google operate:

How do you humanly filter through 510,000 comments every minute to know if there's a illegal thing in there?
Hint: it isn't humanly possible.

So why should you expect something that is not humanly possible from a company?

If a company can not comply with the law, then maybe they should change their structure or way they run things? If I run a company and it gets so large that I can't control it anymore, that is not a very good way to run a company.

 

[Gnome Scat]

The fake news one sounds like a good idea, not sure how I feel about it extending to hate speech though.

 

[Xando]

You don't see to grasp the scale that Facebook/Twitter/Google operate:

How do you humanly filter through 510,000 comments every minute to know if there's a illegal thing in there?
Hint: it isn't humanly possible.

So why should you expect something that is not humanly possible from a company?

I don’t see why this is germanys problem?
If Facebook wants to do business there it has to follow german laws.
They and others have largely ignored laws that every other company has to follow.

 

[felipeko]

If a company can not comply with the law, then maybe they should change their structure or way they run things? If I run a company and it gets so large that I can't control it anymore, that is not a very good way to run a company.

You can make anything unlawful, just because you can make it a law, it does not mean it is the right thing to do.

If your cannot control what your countrymen do online, then maybe you should just not allow them to use internet?
That is not a very good way to run a country.

I don't see why this is germanys problem?
If Facebook wants to do business there it has to follow german laws.
They and others have largely ignored laws that every other company has to follow.

Of course, Germany can do as it pleases, and not have any online platform company inside their borders. I'm just stating that they cannot make laws that bend reality to their wishes.

 

[IrishNinja]

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

the boogies of the world would clutch their pearls so hard

hell, this thread is several pages deep into apologists framing it as the state locking up folks for saying "unpopular" things

 

[dgdas9]

It's pretty clear defined in the german constitution.

Is it? According to the first pdf that DuckDuckGo showed me, 'Hate speech refers to "utterances which tend to insult, intimidate or harass a person or groups or utterances capable of instigating violence, hatred or discrimination." '.

This is the old thing about the right not to be insulted, is it not? I happen to fall on the PC wrong side of that argument, but let's not get bogged down there... The article later quotes a court,

'Viewed from this angle, incorrect information is not an interest that merits protection. The Federal Constitutional Court has consistently ruled, therefore, that protection of freedom of expression does not encompass a factual assertion that the utterer knows is, or that has been proven to be, untrue'

I'm guessing this is where the banning and censoring of Fake News Germany's been pushing for a few months gets its legal footing.

But this is all really murky waters. If I say something that is factually wrong (or that is thought to be factually wrong, or that I myself know is factually wrong) with the intention of maliciously deceiving a third party, I'm suddenly liable for potential criminal offences? Am I the only one who sees an obvious problem with that? Is it so wrong to look at the immense body of evidence of governments explicitly lying to their citizens, and where the truth would have no footing in evidence, and conclude this deliberate constitutional hole is a long run negative for society? Thinking about it, the Snowden leaks could've been prosecuted for Hate Speech...If the US government had these kinds of free speech protections, it could argue that there was no basis for the allegations and that Snowden was spreading lies with the intention of subverting state power (I'm using that expression deliberately)...

TLDR: From the little bit I read of a legal paper I just found online, Germany sports a very light version of China's basis for censorship, that was originally intended to prevent holocaust denial.

 

[ClosingADoor]

You can make anything unlawful, just because you can make it a law, it does not mean it is the right thing to do.

If your cannot control what your countrymen do online, then maybe you should just not allow them to use internet?
That is not a very good way to run a country.

But the things are already illegal, they are now just forcing Facebook and others to enforce it on their networks.

Of course we can not stop everyone from breaking the law, but can't we ask the companies that they use to put their law breaking behavior online to do something against that?

 

[felipeko]

But the things are already illegal, they are now just forcing Facebook and others to enforce it on their networks.

Of course we can not stop everyone from breaking the law, but can't we ask the companies that they use to put their law breaking behavior online to do something against that?

Of course you can force/ask anything of a company you want if you are a government.

It does not mean that what you are asking/forcing is feasible. In this case it simply isn't.

I mean, you just agreed that you cannot stop everyone from breaking the law, but Germany expects that Facebook is able to do it.

 

[SolidSnakex]

You don't see to grasp the scale that Facebook/Twitter/Google operate:

How do you humanly filter through 510,000 comments every minute to know if there's a illegal thing in there?
Hint: it isn't humanly possible.

So why should you expect something that is not humanly possible from a company?

You know how you start chipping away at this? Look for Facebook groups, some don't even make it a secret of what they are. For example, in May of this year a white guy murdered a black man. He was part of a Facebook group. Do you know what this group was called? Alt-Reich:Nation. Gee, I wonder what those people might think of minorities?

 

[felipeko]

You know how you start chipping away at this? Look for Facebook groups, some don't even make it a secret of what they are. For example, in May of this year a white guy murdered a black man. He was part of a Facebook group. Do you know what this group was called? Alt-Reich:Nation. Gee, I wonder what those people might think of minorities?

If it is illegal, law enforcement should be able to do something about it, i do not disagree about this.

 

[Jisgsaw]

I
Because Facebook is not law enforcement, if they are not encouraging the users to break the law, why should Facebook be the one to do anything about it?

Websites should remove comments that have illegal content when it can be easily identified as illegal content. That can happen in two ways:
1- Law enforcement/copyright owner reporting
2- When the illegal concept is so well defined that a machine can do it

Anything other it is not responsibility of the platform, or else the platform is unfeasible.

It's like asking for a car manufacturer to not allow cars to run over pedestrians.They sure can do it, after all, they are a multi billion dollar company, they can hire a lot of people to stay by the drivers side or they can just engineer a slow enough car that is unable to do it.
That's essentially what Germany is asking of Facebook.

Just as a reminder, this law came into life exactly because 1) happened, but FB didn't delete the flagged content.

Also, while I appreciate your example, it is a bit weirdly chosen, as pedestrian AEB is becoming mandatory in cars, more or less asking car manufacturers to not allow cars to run over pedestrians.
/s

In all seriousness, drivers have to take a test before they are allowed to drive; there's sadly no test before being allowed to post on the internet.
If a company offers a platform, it should as far as possible make it so that platform follows the law. As far as possible. No one expects all hate speach to be delted in the second, but as "obvious" cases are mentioned, the law obviously is geared towards your point 2).

 

[GameAddict411]

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

The first amendment will never allow it unfortunately. The clause is broad enough to protect hate speech.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Of course you can force/ask anything of a company you want if you are a government.

It does not mean that what you are asking/forcing is feasible. In this case it simply isn't.

I mean, you just agreed that you cannot stop everyone from breaking the law, but Germany expects that Facebook is able to do it.

I am going to doubt they will be fined 50 million straight up when one comment slipped through the cracks. But it is clear they need to do more and this is a good incentive for that.

If it is illegal, law enforcement should be able to do something about it, i do not disagree about this.

Law enforcement should not be the only one doing that. If it is impossible according to you for Facebook to do this, how do you imagine an external team can even being to handle this? A ton of media and other sectors have self regulation to prevent the government from making laws like this, but apparently Facebook and such didn't think that was necessary. Now they are forced to.

 

[Metal B]

If it is illegal, law enforcement should be able to do something about it, i do not disagree about this.

Okay, deal. Facebook have to give law enforcers control over there network, so that they can delete illegal posts, create there own filter software and catch criminals in time.
Does this sound like a better idea?

 

[felipeko]

Just as a reminder, this law came into life exactly because 1) happened, but FB didn't delete the flagged content.

Yes, i've been told. The law should've targeted 1 happening and having FB comply.

Also, while I appreciate your example, it is a bit weirdly chosen, as pedestrian AEB is becoming mandatory in cars, more or less asking car manufacturers to not allow cars to run over pedestrians.
/s

You see, that is great, because that means a machine can do it now. When a machine is able to classify hate speech, this law stops being stupid.

In all seriousness, drivers have to take a test before they are allowed to drive; there's sadly no test before being allowed to post on the internet.
If a company offers a platform, it should as far as possible make it so that platform follows the law. As far as possible. No one expects all hate speach to be delted in the second, but as "obvious" cases are mentioned, the law obviously is geared towards your point 2).

While i agree that's the case, we should expect laws to be much better defined than having 'obvious' on it. Machine learning is still not good enough for language, so it will still generate a lot of false positives and false negatives, i'd appreciate that the law would be very specific, or else FB will just err on the side of caution, and that brings a whole other level of problems.

Broad laws are much more problematic than stupid laws. This happens to be both.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

If a company can not comply with the law, then maybe they should change their structure or way they run things? If I run a company and it gets so large that I can't control it anymore, that is not a very good way to run a company.

Then buy stock and vote.

 

[Metal B]

Then buy stock and vote.

Did i missed a meeting and we live now in a cyberpunk future, where companies rule the world and can do what they want with society?

 

[felipeko]

I am going to doubt they will be fined 50 million straight up when one comment slipped through the cracks. But it is clear they need to do more and this is a good incentive for that.

Laws are supposed to last (pretty much) forever, and that brings a lot of unforeseen consequences. Making a law to be a 'good incentive' for a company is a bad decision.

Law enforcement should not be the only one doing that. If it is impossible according to you for Facebook to do this, how do you imagine an external team can even being to handle this? A ton of media and other sectors have self regulation to prevent the government from making laws like this, but apparently Facebook and such didn't think that was necessary. Now they are forced to.

I agree. I'm just saying this law goes way over what it should.

Okay, deal. Facebook have to give law enforcers control over there network, so that they can delete illegal posts, create there own filter software and catch criminals in time.
Does this sound like a better idea?

It doesn't sound much different to be honest. It just goes to show how ridiculous this law is.

 

[jchap]

Wonder if its more profitible for these companies to just block thier services in Germany than comply

 

[QuantumBro]

Germany - world leaders

As long as you're not gay.

 

[KDR_11k]

Going by the Tagesschau coverage it sounds like fake news isn't even covered by this at all (libelslander might be). Also sounds like all the time limits and forced reactions only apply when a post has been reported by a user.

Websites should remove comments that have illegal content when it can be easily identified as illegal content. That can happen in two ways:
1- Law enforcement/copyright owner reporting
2- When the illegal concept is so well defined that a machine can do it

I disagree that it must be machine identifiable or reported by law enforcement, it's not too big a burden to expect some degree of moderation from a website operator. Reports by non-privileged users should still be investigated and moderators involved. Yes, it's not feasible for moderators to read every post randomly but a machine-human combination should be able to cover a lot of ground (look for common words or URLs and scan pictures for known hate symbols, for example) and taking user reports seriously and actually acting upon them would go a LOT further than what FB is currently doing.

They didn't cooperate so politicians got to work. Should've learned the lessons from the entertainment industry, when the govt is looking to impose rules better make your own voluntary rules that they can then later make mandatory rather than giving them a blank slate to work from.

GAF manages to be fairly crime-free, Facebook isn't any poorer.

Wonder if its more profitible for these companies to just block thier services in Germany than comply

Beyond the loss of revenue there's the market vacuum that would allow a competitor to jump in and amass leverage in such a market. When you're running a market dominating corporation that relies on networking effects to keep its product dominant you don't want to lose access to parts of the world.

 

[Metal B]

It doesn't sound much different to be honest. It just goes to show how ridiculous this law is.

Either you have Facebook to enforce the law (or get sued) or you give the law enforcer access to their network and have them enforce it. No matter what, the law should be enforced. If you find it ridiculous, its your problem, but we aren't a country, which give questionable people power through of Hate Speeches in the last 50 years and our government didn't censor other non-extreme opinions, based on those laws.

As long as you're not gay.

The fuck?

Beyond the loss of revenue there's the market vacuum that would allow a competitor to jump in and amass leverage in such a market. When you're running a market dominating corporation that relies on networking effects to keep its product dominant you don't want to lose access to parts of the world.

And add on top that Germany has a big influence over the EU, which they could use against Facebook, if provoked.

 

[Gallbaro]

How very...

German.

 

[Randam]

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.

quoted because of importance.

 

[airmangataosenai]

The vagueness of the definition is going to cause a lot of issues. I wonder how Facebook will weigh the pros and cons of complying with it.

Just like the Google antitrust thread, this seems more like an attempt to tax a big company without calling it a tax.

Sites like Twitter and Reddit do a poor job, but I feel like Facebook is genuinely doing its best to weigh civil liberties against their responsibility to control bad and incorrect info post-2016.

 

[Gallbaro]

The vagueness of the definition is going to cause a lot of issues. I wonder how Facebook will weigh the pros and cons of complying with it.

Just like the Google antitrust thread, this seems more like an attempt to tax a big company without calling it a tax.

And what is the interpretation in EU Courts? Is it similar with "right-to-be-forgotten" which has had international implications and benefits for EU citizens.

 

[MJLord]

Why are we fining the street for the shite people shout on it?

 

[Gin-Shiio]

The fact that so many people now get their news off Facebook and are willing to believe whatever it is they read without a second of critical thought is very, very concerning to me. This law may not be perfect, but I think the effect will be a net positive for everyone.

 

[Hip Hop]

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

You guys want to turn this country into a shithole with this. How disgusting of you.

fuck extremists, but this is certainly not the way to go.

Hopefully there is a pushback if this were ever to happen here.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The vagueness of the definition is going to cause a lot of issues. I wonder how Facebook will weigh the pros and cons of complying with it.

Just like the Google antitrust thread, this seems more like an attempt to tax a big company without calling it a tax.

Sites like Twitter and Reddit do a poor job, but I feel like Facebook is genuinely doing its best to weigh civil liberties against their responsibility to control bad and incorrect info post-2016.

I can't anymore... fining companies for abusing their powers and not complying with the law is now a tax.

Having companies remove hate speech is now a tax.

With these kind of discussions I can see how corporations get away with so much shit in America. And I consider myself on the right when it comes to economic issues in Europe, but when I read things like this, I realize some people really are willing to excuse everything major corporations do.

Laws are supposed to last (pretty much) forever, and that brings a lot of unforeseen consequences. Making a law to be a 'good incentive' for a company is a bad decision.

I agree. I'm just saying this law goes way over what it should.

Does someone have the text of the actual law in English? Because I really wonder how far it actually goes and none of the news sources I have seen have much of a description beside a line about removing hate speech.

The fact that so many people now get their news off Facebook and are willing to believe whatever it is they read without a second of critical thought is very, very concerning to me. This law may not be perfect, but I think the effect will be a net positive for everyone.

I must say, the attitude of "I read if on the internet so it must be true" was already there before Facebook. Don't really know why people think that way. But with social media reaching so many people, it certainly has more impact these days.

 

[felipeko]

Either you have Facebook to enforce the law (or get sued) or you give the law enforcer access to their network and have them enforce it. No matter what, the law should be enforced. If you find it ridiculous, its your problem, but we aren't a country, which give questionable people power through of Hate Speeches in the last 50 years and our government didn't censor other non-extreme opinions, based on those laws.

What are the limits of a law tough? Laws on speech always have some kind of orwellian feel to it.

If i do hate speech on public forum, law enforcement has access to it, they do not any kind of special access to find it and report.

But if it is on a private forum where no one inside it feels offended? Should law enforcement also have access to it?
If it does, does it also apply to email groups?
If it does, does it also apply to a google docs?
If it does, does it also apply to my notebook?

Of course if anyone in the group is offended they should be free to take it to court.

But if no one is offended, how far do you go to suppress a victim-less crime?
Because you cannot monitor just hate-speech, you have to monitor everything to find hate-speech.

Do you really think any organization should have this kind of power?
I do understand that Facebook does have this power, but if it they do anything wrong with it, it would be the end of Facebook. In the case of the government that is another story.

I disagree that it must be machine identifiable or reported by law enforcement, it's not too big a burden to expect some degree of moderation from a website operator. Reports by non-privileged users should still be investigated and moderators involved. Yes, it's not feasible for moderators to read every post randomly but a machine-human combination should be able to cover a lot of ground (look for common words or URLs and scan pictures for known hate symbols, for example) and taking user reports seriously and actually acting upon them would go a LOT further than what FB is currently doing.

They didn't cooperate so politicians got to work. Should've learned the lessons from the entertainment industry, when the govt is looking to impose rules better make your own voluntary rules that they can then later make mandatory rather than giving them a blank slate to work from.

GAF manages to be fairly crime-free, Facebook isn't any poorer.

I can agree with this. I still would rather not expect an organization to do law enforcement's job, but what you are proposing it would be a much better option.

 

[Apt101]

Good. We once had a problem with yellow journalism in the US that helped lead us into conflict. Now with social media, aggressive foreign entities and unscrupulous people aren't just exaggerating, they're making libelous and slanderous things up out of whole cloth and influencing the gullible with it. Exhibit A: the millions of Pepe producing virgins. Exhibit B: The legions of clueless Trump voters who believe everything they read on Facebook. I realize there's some crossover there).

 

[Nipo]

Why shouldn't Facebook make sure their users are following the law? They provide them wit a platform.

Should Youtube just leave everything up and then we go after every individual to get something offline. Should websites not remove comments that have illegal content?

Why are people arguing for protecting these large corporation that are not taking responsibility for the content they allow on their networks?


Can someone point me to the actual part of the law that has this thing about fake news in it? Because I see most outlets reporting that it is just about hate speech, inciting violence and defamation. Basically, making sure that these online companies start following laws that are already enforced offline.

I don't know anything about german law. If i own a parking lot and a guy with a microphone starts spewing hate speech in it would i be fined if i don't kick them out quick enough?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I don't know anything about german law. If i own a parking lot and a guy with a microphone starts spewing hate speech in it would i be fined if i don't kick them out quick enough?

Are you a social media platform with over 2 million users? Then no, this law will not apply to you.

 

[Ravensmash]

I don't know anything about german law. If i own a parking lot and a guy with a microphone starts spewing hate speech in it would i be fined if i don't kick them out quick enough?

Are you a social media company or publisher?

Serious question, because you might be.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

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

but they run the country

 

[Nipo]

Are you a social media company or publisher?

Serious question, because you might be.

I assume blogging doesn't count as publishing? My site's hitcount is only in the ten thousands a day but the vast majority of them are in the US.

 

[Kthulhu]

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?

The amount of people Facebook would need to police 2 billion accounts would be extremely impractical, not to mention training, paying, and providing mental health care to those employees.

AI isn't advanced enough to handle fake news, maybe hate speech, but not fake news.

That’s not germanys problem. If you want to do business there you have to follow their laws

I agree. I just am struggling to think of a practical way Facebook or other social media giants would be able to avoid paying the fine.