Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

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.



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.

They'll have a few more months to figure that out and to talk with the German government about it now.

I imagine it would mostly be about reporting content and just removing it quickly after. They can implement a strike system to ban people from publically posting if they go into the wrong too much, just like a lot of sites do.

It will be expensive and time consuming for them for sure, but probably also something that will mostly be much more work at the start. If people know after a while their stuff gets removed or banned, they'll stop posting it there.

I still would like a source that explains the fake news thing, because most outlets don't mention that and just point to hate speech, inciting violence and defamation. Those can overlap with fake news of course, but I don't think Germany itself is making them remove something as vague as fake news in this law?

 

[felipeko]

I still would like a source that explains the fake news thing, because most outlets don't mention that and just point to hate speech, inciting violence and defamation. Those can overlap with fake news of course, but I don't think Germany itself is making them remove something as vague as fake news in this law?

From reddit:

Content they have to delete (or save for prosecution and just block access) is:

• propaganda or symbols of anticonstitutional organizations
• Preparation for violence endangering the state, or publishing instructions for how to do so
• Insulting the federal president, the state, its symbols, or part of the government (I expect that this will make the majority of questionable decisions, as the permissions for satire allows a lot here before it veers into the illegal).
• Treasonous forgery (i.e. forgery that harms the state's relation to other states)
• Public calls for criminal offenses
• Disrupting the peace by threatening criminal offenses
• Forming a criminal group
• Hate speech (this will be another one that'll make up a large share)
• Showing cruel/inhumane violence against people, while also glorifying it or belittling it
• rewarding, or approving of criminal offenses (in the latter case, in a way suitable to disrupt the peace)
• Insulting religions or worldviews in a manner suitable to disrupt the peace (Another good chunk probably)
• Distributing child porn, or porn to children, or porn to the general public without the necessary controls
• Insult, slander and libel
• Threatening with a criminal offense
• forging data relevant to legal dealings

 

[mcrommert]

Wow. Germany never really recovered from World War 2. Pretty sad

 

[slit]

Insulting the federal president, the state, its symbols, or part of the government (I expect that this will make the majority of questionable decisions, as the permissions for satire allows a lot here before it veers into the illegal).

Wow, imagine that was forbidden in the U.S. GAF would be in big trouble!

 

[Muffin1611]

By the way, to the people saying experts said the law is unconstitutional because Facebook would be prone to delete more than less to not incur any fees:

After that they made the compromise that Facebook and the like don't have to house the entire process in their own company, but can outsource it to a common institution together with other sites like Youtube etc. , with oversight of the federal bureau of justice. So platforms can band together in Germany for this. I think it's in place for cases where doubt is involved.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netz...aben-sich-cdu-und-spd-geeinigt-a-1153829.html

Should be added to the OP, to be honest, it's a rather important point.

Wow. Germany never really recovered from World War 2. Pretty sad

To me it rather seems like we are one of the few that learned from it. Funny that.

 

[Fisty]

I really like the idea behind it, but man it's scary to think right-wing nutjobs get voted in next after the current crop and abuse the shit out of this law. Same reason I don't think this would be a great idea in the USA

 

[Pennywise]

I really like the idea behind it, but man it's scary to think right-wing nutjobs get voted in next after the current crop and abuse the shit out of this law. Same reason I don't think this would be a great idea in the USA

That won't happen.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

To me it rather seems like we are one of the few that learned from it. Funny that.

During the last 100 years we had two dictatorships on german soil that brainwashed its people into systematically monitoring and denouncing each other. This law is a step back in that direction and i'm afraid it's only the beginning.

 

[Fisty]

That won't happen.

Oh? I'm not familiar with the finer points of Germany's political system. What safeguards do they have in place?

 

[Imperfected]

As an American, I'm glad we could at least act as a cautionary tale. My mother always said, "The highest calling some people have in life is to serve as a warning to others."

 

[Muffin1611]

During the last 100 years we had two dictatorships on german soil that brainwashed its people into systematically monitoring and denouncing each other. This law is a step back in that direction and i'm afraid it's only the beginning.

Except the first one of the two dictatorships you mention didn't start brainwashing people when they got elected, they did that before already by doing what this law aims to further restrict. Not even further, just in places it should have worked in anyway already.


By the way, here's the current preliminary version, although it's only in German:

http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/130/1813013.pdf

 

[Xando]

During the last 100 years we had two dictatorships on german soil that brainwashed its people into systematically monitoring and denouncing each other. This law is a step back in that direction and i'm afraid it's only the beginning.

These kind of posts always crack me up because the sheer amount of ignorance and not having a clue about the political situation in germany.

 

[Pennywise]

Oh? I'm not familiar with the finer points of Germany's political system. What safeguards do they have in place?

We don't have a two party system like the US does, that already guarantees a bigger variety.
Add on top that every party stated that they will not form a coalition with the right wing scumbags and their numbers continue to drop.

Also the laws about hate speech are clearly defined in the constitution and changing that isn't that easy.

Although the Grundgesetz might be changed with a 2/3 majority of the Bundestag, the Fundamental Rights are protected by article 19. Modification on the first 18 articles is only allowed as long as the essential contents remain unchanged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_the_German_Constitution

If you're interested in the whole process :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

 

[WorriedCitizen]

These kind of posts always crack me up because the sheer amount of ignorance and not having a clue about the political situation in germany.

You fool. I live in Germany and i grew up in the communist dictatorship. I still remember the brainwashing and propaganda vividly and the similarities with some of the things that happen today are alarming to say the least.

 

[Fisty]

We don't have a two party system like the US does, that already guarantees a bigger variety.
Add on top that every party stated that they will not form a coalition with the right wing scumbags and their numbers continue to drop.

Also the laws about hate speech are clearly defined in the constitution and changing that isn't that easy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_the_German_Constitution

If you're interested in the whole process :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

Seems like you guys got it all figured out... goddamn it America get your shit together

 

[Xando]

You fool. I live in Germany and i grew up in the communist dictatorship. I still remember the brainwashing and propaganda vividly and the similarities with some of the things that happen today are alarming to say the least.

Nice of you to insult me.
It seems clear how well you understand the political situation today when you think it’s comparable to the GDR.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Facebook will be one of many to just pay "go away" money.

 

[entremet]

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.



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.



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.

You can't be seriously comparing GAF to FB. GAF is minuscule in comparison. It has a very long vetting process, requires paid email address, and has tons of mods even with the small posting community. Many users never post. GAF has many moderation tactics to deal with this, such as the processes I mentioned above.. FB does not want to be exclusive. They want everyone under the sun since that's how their ad model works.

Compare to FB that has billions of users, is one of the most used sites in the world, and to many the internet is only FB. Poor comparison.

Not only that GAF mostly moderates public posts. Facebook posts are posted within their private communities, which are gated. That's millions of posts of per day. Hiring moderators won't help.

 

[airmangataosenai]

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.


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.


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.

If nothing else, it has definitely opened my eyes to how much Europeans almost unquestioningly trust their governments to protect their best interests versus an American would. Whether on the left or right, granting such broad powers to the government to define what is right or wrong on the spot would not go over well here. Any kind of government sponsored censorship here would face universal disdain.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Nice of you to insult me.
It seems clear how well you understand the political situation today when you think it’s comparable to the GDR.

It seems clear how little experience you have with authoritarianism when you don't recognize it manifesting right before your own eyes.

 

[ClosingADoor]

From reddit:

Doesn't really seem like a clear ban on "fake news" unless you spread bullshit on purpose that has clear harm. The insulting thing is a bit questionable, I agree that can be open to abuse or Facebook going to remove things too quickly. I imagine there being some fights to more clearly define these things.

If nothing else, it has definitely opened my eyes to how much Europeans almost unquestioningly trust their governments to protect their best interests versus an American would. Whether on the left or right, granting such broad powers to the government to define what is right or wrong on the spot would not go over well here. Any kind of government sponsored censorship here would face universal disdain.

But at the moment, these things are already illegal in Germany I think. They now just make a law that forces large social media companies to make sure their users don't do it on their networks.

I don't think Europeans trust their governments unquestionably. But the government is not seen as some big evil as a lot of Americans seem to think. We just trust the large corporations less, since at least with government, we can change it every few years. We have no control over a Google or Facebook, so it only seems natural to have the government impose limits on them if they step out of line and do harm. That does not mean I trust the government in every way, since there are a ton of areas they need to do better.

 

[kitsunelaine]

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

why use two different words for the same thing

 

[Altairre]

You fool. I live in Germany and i grew up in the communist dictatorship. I still remember the brainwashing and propaganda vividly and the similarities with some of the things that happen today are alarming to say the least.

Then you should have no problem listing these similarities because otherwise

It seems clear how little experience you have with authoritarianism when you don't recognize it manifesting right before your own eyes.

I have literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Germany is ranked 13th on the Democracy Index and scored 95/100 on the Freedom House Index. Your comparison to the GDR is absurd to say the least.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

If nothing else, it has definitely opened my eyes to how much Europeans almost unquestioningly trust their governments to protect their best interests versus an American would. Whether on the left or right, granting such broad powers to the government to define what is right or wrong on the spot would not go over well here. Any kind of government sponsored censorship here would face universal disdain.

Not really. Plenty of people do not trust the state and are also very concerned about their privacy. Something like the NSA leak happening would be a huge issue in a lot of European countries.

But at the moment, these things are already illegal in Germany I think. They now just make a law that forces large social media companies to make sure their users don't do it on their networks.

Yup. There are plenty of reports of Facebook users being fined for hate speech that is covered by German law. I assume a law is being passed just because the sheer amount of hate speech has increased significantly and the state can't keep up.

https://www.test.de/Hasskommentare-Ein-Facebook-Post-schlaegt-Wellen-5020226-0/

Just a quick translation: it's posts targeted at specific people, including the call for lynching, opening up the gas chambers again, implying the jews are at fault for the Holocaust, and the stoning of Merkel. Below is the fine they have to pay.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

This is terrible. Real 'hate speech' and so forth is a problem but we already have perfectly sufficient laws to deal with it, amongst many other things. This new legislation encroaches on grey areas, where one persons hate speech is another persons perfectly legitimate and dissenting opinion. It closes the door on free thinking and freedom of expression, and paves the path for authoritarian rule. Also by the looks of it will basically bring blasphemy law back in through the side window. Blasphemy in modern Europe lol, the 'Religion of Peace™' won't abuse that. Nope.

Also what and who determines 'fake news'. There might be a lot of junk on the internet but there's also some very good stuff too, topics which don't get discussed by mainstream media. Or topics which do receive attention but are presented from a biased perspective. The MSM are also guilty of their own 'fake news' from time to time when it suits them and their government overlords. Are we supposed to get our world view from them only, and anything which swings in other directions is illegal?

It's amazing how many people are happy to surrender their freedoms and democratic process to globalist ideology these days. It's like everyone forgot the important foundations on which the western world prospered in the first place. Now it seems many people are happy to live within an effective dictatorship. A system not designed for the people but for those who control the people, and clueless minions applaud them for it. Welp.

 

[Yeoman]

This is terrible. Real 'hate speech' and so forth is a problem but we already have perfectly sufficient laws to deal with it, amongst many other things. This new legislation encroaches on grey areas, where one persons hate speech is another persons perfectly legitimate and dissenting opinion. It closes the door on free thinking and freedom of expression, and paves the path for authoritarian rule. Also by the looks of it will basically bring blasphemy law back in through the side window. Blasphemy in modern Europe lol, the 'Religion of Peace™' won't abuse that. Nope.

Also what and who determines 'fake news'. There might be a lot of junk on the internet but there's also some very good stuff too, topics which don't get discussed by mainstream media. Or topics which do receive attention but are presented from a biased perspective. The MSM are also guilty of their own 'fake news' from time to time when it suits them and their government overlords. Are we supposed to get our world view from them only, and anything which swings in other directions is illegal?

It's amazing how many people are happy to surrender their freedoms and democratic proccess to globalist ideology these days. It's like everyone forgot the important foundations on which the western world prospered in the first place. Now it seems many people are happy to live within an effective dictatorship. A system not designed for the people but for those who control the people, and clueless minions applaud them for it. Welp.

I can tell exactly the sort of person that you are.
All you need to do now is mention the Zionist agenda and you'd have a full house.

 

[KDR_11k]

https://www.test.de/Hasskommentare-Ein-Facebook-Post-schlaegt-Wellen-5020226-0/

Just a quick translation: it's posts targeted at specific people, including the call for lynching, opening up the gas chambers again, implying the jews are at fault for the Holocaust, and the stoning of Merkel. Below is the fine they have to pay.

I'm not sure the fines tell us much since AFAIK most of these offences have income-adjusted fines with the relevant laws prescribing punishments in days of income.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is terrible. Real 'hate speech' and so forth is a problem but we already have perfectly sufficient laws to deal with it, amongst many other things. This new legislation encroaches on grey areas, where one persons hate speech is another persons perfectly legitimate and dissenting opinion. It closes the door on free thinking and freedom of expression, and paves the path for authoritarian rule. Also by the looks of it will basically bring blasphemy law back in through the side window. Blasphemy in modern Europe lol, the 'Religion of Peace™' won't abuse that. Nope.

Also what and who determines 'fake news'. There might be a lot of junk on the internet but there's also some very good stuff too, topics which don't get discussed by mainstream media. Or topics which do receive attention but are presented from a biased perspective. The MSM are also guilty of their own 'fake news' from time to time when it suits them and their government overlords. Are we supposed to get our world view from them only, and anything which swings in other directions is illegal?

It's amazing how many people are happy to surrender their freedoms and democratic process to globalist ideology these days. It's like everyone forgot the important foundations on which the western world prospered in the first place. Now it seems many people are happy to live within an effective dictatorship. A system not designed for the people but for those who control the people, and clueless minions applaud them for it. Welp.

If we have sufficient laws, how come Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are filled with calls for violence, hate speech and harassment?

Please see the list above another poster made about the offenses and you'll see that 'fake news' is not on it, so no, it is not just about removing things the government wants gone.

How does enforcing existing laws online turn a country into a dictatorship?

How does the current system protect me and others from online harassment, lies and other things that have a real impact?

 

[Theonik]

This seems like a terrible idea. Corporations shouldn't be expected to act as law enforcement this will only hurt the German public in the foreseeable future.

If we have sufficient laws, how come Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are filled with calls for violence, hate speech and harassment?

Please see the list above another poster made about the offenses and you'll see that 'fake news' is not on it, so no, it is not just about removing things the government wants gone.

How does enforcing existing laws online turn a country into a dictatorship?

How does the current system protect me and others from online harassment, lies and other things that have a real impact?

We have sufficient laws to prosecute hate speech but one of the problems is the line is incredibly blurred in the first place that makes it hard to prosecute. (intentionally so it can be used to prosecute a number of offences as the state sees fit.)
This law does not address that part nor in addresses the problem that actually there is too much speech that could be potentially interpreted as 'hate speech'
Now, if it is a question of volume, not prosecution, how is Facebook better equipped at dealing with this than governments are. Does facebook have magic powers that give them +10 moderation or other buffs?

 

[ClosingADoor]

This seems like a terrible idea. Corporations shouldn't be expected to act as law enforcement this will only hurt the German public in the foreseeable future.


We have sufficient laws to prosecute hate speech but the problem is the line is incredibly blurred in the first place that makes it hard to prosecute.
This law does not address that part nor in addresses the problem that actually there is too much speech that could be potentially interpreted as 'hate speech'
Now, if it is a question of volume, not prosecution, how is Facebook better equipped at dealing with this than governments are. Does facebook have magic powers that give them +10 moderation or other buffs?

Of course Facebook can deal with large volumes like this better. They run the network. It seems clear that they can control their own content quicker then if you have to go through a police report and judge, who then need to force Facebook to remove it.

Why shouldn't corporations be expected to control the content on their network and make sure it complies with the law? They own the database, they let people put it on there, they give people the means to spread it around.

If I run a website and allow people to put illegal content on it, of course I am then also at fault to some extend. And with larger corporations like this, we can expect them to do more against it.

They now need to remove the content within 24 hours or in some cases a week. Of course if they don't think it is illegal, they won't and then a judge will rule over it anyway so later on we know if comparable content should be deleted or not. This is all a very normal process to me.

 

[Muffin1611]

The sheer amount of people saying how this is a step in the direction of authoritarianism is embarrassing. Complete ignorance of the politic situation in Germany and the laws that were in force for years. This law is applying what is already in the law in a way that it can work online.

The problem is mainly that illegal content gets reported and not taken down. Just today I saw how Twitter dismissed clear threats against the children of a Spiegel reporter as not against the rules. That has to stop.

The discussion if Facebook and co. are equipped to do that is the thing here worth of discussion. As well as what they have to do to achieve that.

I find the part of the law that allows voluntary self-control by forming a institution under oversight of the bureau of justice together with other platforms like Youtube a good compromise. It's not a problem exclusive to Facebook after all and it lowers the risk of Facebook deleting more than they should.

 

[AmFreak]

The problem is mainly that illegal content gets reported and not taken down. Just today I saw how Twitter dismissed clear threats against the children of a Spiegel reporter as not against the rules. That has to stop.

Interesting that you mention a reporter as an example, because the largest journalist organization of europe the "Deutscher Journalisten-Verband" is currently begging Steinmeier to not sign the law in it's current form (and they aren't the only ones).
https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/pressebereich-download/pressemitteilungen/detail/article/kein-ja-des-praesidenten.html

 

[Theonik]

Of course Facebook can deal with large volumes like this better. They run the network. It seems clear that they can control their own content quicker then if you have to go through a police report and judge, who then need to force Facebook to remove it.

Why shouldn't corporations be expected to control the content on their network and make sure it complies with the law? They own the database, they let people put it on there, they give people the means to spread it around.

If I run a website and allow people to put illegal content on it, of course I am then also at fault to some extend. And with larger corporations like this, we can expect them to do more against it.

They now need to remove the content within 24 hours or in some cases a week. Of course if they don't think it is illegal, they won't and then a judge will rule over it anyway so later on we know if comparable content should be deleted or not. This is all a very normal process to me.

I mean clearly they can't deal with it and haven't been able to. You can say 'well that's the law they should deal with it' that's all very true. But laws do not change realities. Making sure Facebook has policies in place to not encourage people breaking the law and asking them to ensure no-one is breaking the law in their platform is a different problem entirely. This doesn't provide sufficient means to solve the problem and just puts it in the hands of providers. They won't be able to cope and will either limit content coming from Germany as a response or just not bother adhering to the law. After all this will cost them much more than 50 million Euro to achieve. Having said that the German government knows this so effectively this won't really be put into force in a meaningful way so in the end will be optics at best or Facebook just deletes everything. Depends on the level of sanity of the German administration.

The sheer amount of people saying how this is a step in the direction of authoritarianism is embarrassing. Complete ignorance of the politic situation in Germany and the laws that were in force for years. This law is applying what is already in the law in a way that it can work online.

"That there is people who disagree with me is embarrassing" OK

 

[Messofanego]

Online being treated equally to offline is good to hear.

 

[Muffin1611]

Interesting that you mention a reporter as an example, because the largest journalist organization of europe the "Deutscher Journalisten-Verband" is currently begging Steinmeier to not sign the law in it's current form (and they aren't the only ones).
https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/pressebereich-download/pressemitteilungen/detail/article/kein-ja-des-praesidenten.html

I'm sure the reporter in question can want his children not threatened and still be against this law, sure. I mentioned him as example of a victim, not supporter. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The site you linked even names the changes made as good compromise, but not a compromise that is enough in their view. If it really isn't, someone will surely sue and the law adapted. I never claimed it was perfect.

"That there is people who disagree with me is embarrassing" OK

Yeah, I'm sure I said that because I'm mad that I'm being disagreed with, and not because it simply shows that the persons in question are misrepresenting Germanys political situation and being hyperbolic. Comparisons with the nazi regime and the DDR are surely apt. As well as apparently being okay with the Volksverhetzung law that simply works as intended and acknowledging hate speech is a problem, but saying this law will be the doom of us all.

 

[ShadowOwl]

While this law may exist with good intentions it is total shit. Providers and social media will just mass delete reported content instead of properly reviewing it because they will not invest more money/time/personell for the necessary reviewing processes.

Pretty much EVERYBODY (activists, industry, parties of the opposition) was against this law in the current form but the Department for Justice under Maas ignored any kind of feedback.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I mean clearly they can't deal with it and haven't been able to. You can say 'well that's the law they should deal with it' that's all very true. But laws do not change realities. Making sure Facebook has policies in place to not encourage people breaking the law and asking them to ensure no-one is breaking the law in their platform is a different problem entirely. This doesn't provide sufficient means to solve the problem and just puts it in the hands of providers. They won't be able to cope and will either limit content coming from Germany as a response or just not bother adhering to the law. After all this will cost them much more than 50 million Euro to achieve. Having said that the German government knows this so effectively this won't really be put into force in a meaningful way so in the end will be optics at best.

How is it clear they can't deal with it? Seems to me they aren't even trying that hard, so now they are forced to.

And if it is impossible to control your users on your platform, then maybe the way your platform is set up isn't that good. Why are we excusing Facebook and others with the argument that basically comes down to: it is a lot of work and costs a lot of money. Why should I care about that? A ton of stuff costs companies a lot of money, we still expect them to do it.

While this law may exist with good intentions it is total shit. Providers and social media will just mass delete reported content instead of properly reviewing it.

The law does not apply to internet providers, since those have no control over content and can't delete anything. It applies to social networks with over 2 million users.

 

[kingkaiser]

Man, why is it always someone raised in the GDR in here who chases shadows of an allegedly "dictatorship" forming right before our eyes?

Must be some kind of PTSD.

 

[MUnited83]

I mean clearly they can't deal with it and haven't been able to. You can say 'well that's the law they should deal with it' that's all very true. But laws do not change realities. Making sure Facebook has policies in place to not encourage people breaking the law and asking them to ensure no-one is breaking the law in their platform is a different problem entirely. This doesn't provide sufficient means to solve the problem and just puts it in the hands of providers. They won't be able to cope and will either limit content coming from Germany as a response or just not bother adhering to the law. After all this will cost them much more than 50 million Euro to achieve. Having said that the German government knows this so effectively this won't really be put into force in a meaningful way so in the end will be optics at best or Facebook just deletes everything. Depends on the level of sanity of the German administration.


"That there is people who disagree with me is embarrassing" OK

Being wrong is not "disagreeing", it's being wrong.

 

[Muffin1611]

While this law may exist with good intentions it is total shit. Providers and social media will just mass delete reported content instead of properly reviewing it because they will not invest more money/time/personell for the necessary reviewing processes.

Pretty much EVERYBODY (activists, industry, parties of the opposition) was against this law in the current form but the Department for Justice under Maas ignored any kind of feedback.

Except they have this option:

By the way, to the people saying experts said the law is unconstitutional because Facebook would be prone to delete more than less to not incur any fees:

After that they made the compromise that Facebook and the like don't have to house the entire process in their own company, but can outsource it to a common institution together with other sites like Youtube etc. , with oversight of the federal bureau of justice. So platforms can band together in Germany for this. I think it's in place for cases where doubt is involved.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netz...aben-sich-cdu-und-spd-geeinigt-a-1153829.html

 

[Theonik]

Man, why is it always someone raised in the GDR in here who chases shadows of an allegedly "dictatorship" forming right before our eyes?

Must be some kind of PTSD.

Might be that. Or maybe they've seen where this leads first hand. Many things are started with the best of intentions.

But on that same note, Germany's current hate speech and privacy laws come from PTSD from the Nazis so maybe you're on to something here.

How is it clear they can't deal with it? Seems to me they aren't even trying that hard, so now they are forced to.

And if it is impossible to control your users on your platform, then maybe the way your platform is set up isn't that good. Why are we excusing Facebook and others with the argument that basically comes down to: it is a lot of work and costs a lot of money. Why should I care about that? A ton of stuff costs companies a lot of money, we still expect them to do it.

So the problem so far has been that they were under pressure by governments to do just that but governments and companies were unable to effectively do so. Then we say maybe we didn't push them hard enough. When they fail again will we then turn and say 'Maybe the fines should be harsher we didn't push hard enough' until the problem either goes away or more likely we find a new distraction. Or perhaps one should reconsider one's approach.

If it is impossible to have a free platform for information extent then maybe we shouldn't have one I agree! Or maybe we can consider whether the benefit outweighs the bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean that's the dilemma you are putting forward here. Maybe Facebook shouldn't exist. Too dangerous. The PRC had it right all along! Or maybe critics of the proposed legal measures are actually criticising flaws in the legislation.

Being wrong is not "disagreeing", it's being wrong.

OK I'll bite. Everyone knows about Germany's hate speech laws and those have always applied online. This is not about that in particular though they are actually controversial in their own right.
The problem is the new enforcement mechanisms are criticised by several parties for a variety of reasons. Perhaps these people have more to say than 'embarrassing things'

 

[Nerazar]

Man, why is it always someone raised in the GDR in here who chases shadows of an allegedly "dictatorship" forming right befor our eyes?

Must be some kind of PTSD.

It's also the typical narrative from AfD-supporters. I wonder if that's correlated somehow in that case...

I understand the concern about censorship and everything and the law which is not perfect, but I still see the need to regulating the online space in that regard. Trump got elected in part because far-right trolls and Russian bots could write and spread fallacies however they wanted. That is more than just dangerous. And we have to stop that strategy right here and now, before something like Trump happens in Europe / Germany.

In the last years, starting with the Russian invasion of Crimea, I've become less attuned to the argument of complete laissez-faire internet. Democracy can handle much, but not mass manipulation from inside or outside. There are people running out there believing that Ukraine built concentration camps and was "re-establishing" the literal Hitler Youth. And that ISIS fights among the Ukrainian government troops. Those were online "news" which were being spread.

If there is a way to stop spreading those lies, we have to take it. And that's only the outside perspective. What lies did I have to read regarding migrants in the same way... and how much violence could have been avoided if there was some way of banishing fake stories from the SM newsfeeds.

We don't need a second Weimar. And right now, in its current completely unregulated state, Social Media's inherent flaws can bring down democracies.

You will always have Trump to remember that lesson.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Wow. Germany never really recovered from World War 2. Pretty sad

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean

 

[Nerazar]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean

It means that he thinks that Trump is a democratic leader and that Germany is the villain now. Enough laughter for the whole day, thanks to that sentiment.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

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.

Problem is this gives social media sites carte blanch to delete "offending material," will lead to automated systems to handle the insurmountable load which could lead to a chilling effect on speech rights as tons of inevitable false positives get triggered. If we think youtube's copyright strike system is bad I fear how bad this kinda stuff could get. I understand the desire to try to clean up online spaces but I don't think this is a proper way to do it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

So the problem so far has been that they were under pressure by governments to do just that but governments and companies were unable to effectively do so. Then we say maybe we didn't push them hard enough. When they fail again will we then turn and say 'Maybe the fines should be harsher we didn't push hard enough' until the problem either goes away or more likely we find a new distraction. Or perhaps one should reconsider one's approach.

If it is impossible to have a free platform for information extent then maybe we shouldn't have one I agree! Or maybe we can consider whether the benefit outweighs the bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean that's the dillemma here. Maybe Facebook shouldn't exist. Too dangerous. The PRC had it right all along!

Considering that social media is not removing clear harassment, threats and hate speech, can you fault people for thinking they don't really do enough and should be pressured into it?

From now on, they will have to publish a quarterly report on how they have dealt with it. They are forced to act quicker on reported content. Is that really such a bad thing?

I just don't see how it is impossible for Facebook to control their content. They do a ton of checks now to make sure the users they get are real people. So if someone crosses the line, remove their stuff, ban them if they do it enough times, and clean up your network. This all seems like a pretty reasonable request.

What other approach do we have then to force these companies to be accountable for their actions?

Problem is this gives social media sites carte blanch to delete "offending material," will lead to automated systems to handle the insurmountable load which could lead to a chilling effect on speech rights as tons of inevitable false positives get triggered. If we think youtube's copyright strike system is bad I fear how bad this kinda stuff could get. I understand the desire to try to clean up online spaces but I don't think this is a proper way to do it.

What is the proper way to do it, if we can not ask the social media companies themselves to act?

 

[Xando]

Problem is this gives social media sites carte blanch to delete "offending material," will lead to automated systems to handle the insurmountable load which could lead to a chilling effect on speech rights as tons of inevitable false positives get triggered. If we think youtube's copyright strike system is bad I fear how bad this kinda stuff could get. I understand the desire to try to clean up online spaces but I don't think this is a proper way to do it.

Germany gave internet companies a year to find a better way. Nothing changed, in case of Twitter it even got worse.

If companies aren't going to follow german law themselves they will have to be forced to.

 

[Man with Knife]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean

It's called being deliberately obtuse

 

[Auto-Reply]

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.

...

With all the "automation will kill many jobs going forward" fear going on, doesn't sound like a bad idea to me!

 

[Theonik]

With all the "automation will kill many jobs going forward" fear going on, doesn't sound like a bad idea to me!

Idk, looking at dickpics 8+ hrs a day would be one of the few professions I'd rank as worse than fastfood clerks.