Spiral Insanity
Banned
I like it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Germany plans to fine social media sites that do not remove reported hate speech
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
- Status
I visit Münich quite often (friend of mine lives there), its were the Nazi-party originated. There is a museum about the rise of national socialism (with, given the history of the place, a focus on the NSDAP / Nazi party). I visited it a few months ago and it's very impressive, and it actually made me sick to see a bunch of parallels in our current social and political climate. People sometimes forget that it took a good 15 years for the NSDAP to gain the ground they needed to put a guy Hitler in absolute control. We live in a time were we actually have politicians saying that not all people are equal and are targeting specific demographics to be a 'common enemy', I can just hope that we did learn a lesson from history.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
Thelonelykoopa
Member
Good, I wish we could do the same in US. These people shouldn't have the right to use platforms to spread their message. Sadly the US is so overflowing with this filth I see very little ways we can contain it.Though it would be hilarious for Breitbart to be fined 50 million dollars everytime they post an article .
The US has a really flawed view on freedom of speech which is very unfortunate.
But as stated numerous times before in this thread, this is not changing any existing laws on hate speech and freedom of speech, it just makes sure that social media companies are made responsible if their services are used to share this shit.
But as stated numerous times before in this thread, this is not changing any existing laws on hate speech and freedom of speech, it just makes sure that social media companies are made responsible if their services are used to share this shit.
Muffin1611
Banned
How long is "a matter of time"? It worked out in the last decades.
So why hasn't that happened in the decades these laws have already existed? That slope doesn't appear that slippery.
People continue to not understand what Freedom of Speech grants.
The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
These laws have been in place for 60 years and there hasn't been a shift to redefine hate speech.
This is only to force internet companies to finally follow german law like everyone else has to
Can't really get behind this tbh. Obviously, the hate speech laws were already in place and Germany is well within their rights to enforce them with regards to their citizens, but I have a fundamental problem with the laws to begin with.
Would you be comfortable with a Trump-appointed SCOTUS deciding who's covered by these laws?
That's just a list of free speech restrictions that are already in place in various countries, not a prescription for what should actually be law. I think several of those restrictions are varying degrees of bullshit (right to be forgotten, pornography, obscenity).
Would you be comfortable with a Trump-appointed SCOTUS deciding who's covered by these laws?
That's just a list of free speech restrictions that are already in place in various countries, not a prescription for what should actually be law. I think several of those restrictions are varying degrees of bullshit (right to be forgotten, pornography, obscenity).
But also:
Lifehacker did a good piece on this
http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-...-speech-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-internet
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? This is a thread about government dictating what speech can be allowed on social media platforms. Everyone knows about the xkcd comic, but that doesn't apply here.
No, this is the government extending public laws into the digital space, something that should be self-evident in its obviousness.
If hate speech endangers people and social media shirks the responsibility of doing something about it then it falls on governments to protect the people. They aren't going after individuals, they are fining the platform.
That's not how it works and it's a dumb argument that has been proven wrong over and over.
You're wrong.
What the fuck is up with people thinking that "hate speech" is some kind of really abstract concept? I mean, it's really fucjing straightforward. And why don't you apply that dumb rationalising to laws in general, anyways?
The law has been there for 60+ years. It works, there is no slippery slope. And the first article of the Grundgesetz isn't free speech. It is something far more important for a country that committed the holocaust.
The good news is with these internet based companies, one country forcing them to behave with common decency can actually have a positive effect everywhere around the world if they get their hate speech tools created and working properly. The USA is too backwards to fix its usage of free speech, but Germany might still help us fix it.
So your solution against, e.g., cyberbullying would be "grow a thicker skin"? Because I don't see an alternative if you think laws against this shouldn't be a thing.
I think social media companies should do a better of moderation (and empowering users to self-moderate) on their platforms. I also think that many forms of cyberbullying are already covered by existing death threat and harassment laws. Targeted harassment is a separate issue from generalized hate speech.
That's exactly what the german goverment said last year. That's why they gave social media companies a deadline until early this year to start and actually improve moderation and follow german law. (German source)
Social media companies did not improve their moderation or started following german law. That's why the goverment had to act now.
Messofanego
Banned
But that's what hate speech is. You can't do hate speech here in UK or you'll get dealt with the authorities. And plenty have.
Doxxing, incitement of violence, and general hate speech needs to have justice to help out the victims. Didn't mean to incite harm against someone? Pay the fine or go to court and enjoy defending yourself.
Messofanego
Banned
They've failed on their target which is why legal action has to follow.
So Facebook and Twitter are citinzens now?
The difference being that I'm not advocating that any specific government dictate what standards should be enforced by platforms. I think the more important consideration at hand here is the potential for the erosion international communication that happens once individual nations get more involved in the game of determining appropriate content. I don't want arbitrary nations to be empowered to arbitrarily affect international services I enjoy (going far beyond typical shithead speech here).
No, of course not. I mentioned citizens to emphasize the above point that non-German citizens should not be subject to German law.
2014 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
2015 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
2016 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
2017 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
i don't follow your logic here. so if i go out and smoke some weed on the sidewalk and get arrested, i still have the freedom to smoke weed on the sidewalk ... just not without getting arrested?
I mean, on the one hand, I get the wish that you shouldn't be restrained by the lowest common denominator and only be able to discuss what China deems okay on Facebook.
On the other hand, big, international companies being above the law of democracies strikes me as more than a bit iffy.
Besides, Europeans are already adhearing to weird American customs about modesty on Facebook, whether they want to or not. So what you describe is already happening.
Don'tBeWeird
Member
Great news
Established news organizations in the states should be fined for publishing fake news. I also think the media should be categorical to defend the freedom of opinion for journalists, but it should be obvious. If a piece is satire, then it should be labeled as such. if it is factual then it needs to be sourced and sound. Just like we have labels of restrictions on on games and films, the same needs to happen to the media.
To tie it in with the topic at hand, as cool as it would be to shut some people up on social media, freedom of speech should be defended even if it based on ignorance. Regular everyday people should not have to worry about censoring themselves irl or online. However, too often do I see individuals from both parties refer to articles based entirely on opinion, get passed around like its a sound statement for their argument.
To tie it in with the topic at hand, as cool as it would be to shut some people up on social media, freedom of speech should be defended even if it based on ignorance. Regular everyday people should not have to worry about censoring themselves irl or online. However, too often do I see individuals from both parties refer to articles based entirely on opinion, get passed around like its a sound statement for their argument.
I use to agree. But in the US, because we have done nothing about this at all. We have a massive influx of white supremacists, fake news, and other shit. People like the Spencer fuck who do nothing but incite people to violence basically should not have a place to talk. So I'm okay with it... the exact opposite seems to be true. Not punishing it has caused the fucked up issue were in.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Good.
In this specific case, it's not too much of an issue since the enforcement is largely just taking down offending posts made by Germans, but when it comes to enforcement of larger issues (like, for example, Russia's LGBTQ+ "propaganda" laws) it either forces the creation of internet ghettos a la Great Firewall or it starts affecting international users as companies enforce site-wide regulations to address local concerns.
I'm not a fan of my country's lamer cultural exports, but Facebook being lame of their own volition is a far cry from them being forced to do so (this is the usual "it's a private platform" position at play).
I never said they were doing a good job.
Fining for fake news is the wrong approach. Those companies are well funded. They should be forced, if they reported fake news, to broadcast the clarification of the fake news as long and at the same time slots. That way you can't hide a 2 sentence apology in the middle of the night while spouting bullshit all day and just eating the fine.
This is not a thing that happens in countries with hate speech laws. It's just not. Can you give me an example? We have hate speech laws back home in Mexico and also here in Japan - which means I've never been to a "free speech country", lol. I'm not seeing any signs of this slippery slope that will lead us to get jail time for saying we prefer chocolate over strawberry.
It's pretty freaking easy to draw a line when it comes to hate speech, just ask your neighbours (Mexico, Canada) or all the countries out there with hate speech laws.
You're aware that the leadership of these companies is much more arbitrarily selected than democratically elected governments and a lot less accountable, right?
The reverse of your scenario of said companies disregarding national jurisdiction is much more likely and a lot scarier as well. Your concern seems to be just about your fundamental disagreement with the restrictions to speech. The rest is conjecture at best.
I dont think something like cyber bullying falls under hate speech.
There should be a three strike policy attached to it to make it effective. I know it sounds dramatic, but giving false information to the everyday populous isn't a joke.
Killa Sasa
Member
Can anyone point out to me an instance when hate speech laws have been a negative force in a G20 country?
None of this hypothetical slippery slope shit. An actual example.
I'll wait.
Or... This is a good thing.
None of this hypothetical slippery slope shit. An actual example.
I'll wait.
Or... This is a good thing.
True, but I wouldn't expect any less of a private entity.
I think my above post my clear up my position better. I don't think companies should be free to ignore the laws of the countries they operate in, just that individual governments exerting increased control over the content of international communities tends to have worse outcomes for the users.
It's true that my fundamental issue with this is with the nature of the speech restrictions, but I think that the online aspect issue exacerbates it.
They're not just doing a poor job though. They're doing literally nothing. Twitter is so completely and utterly toxic that no one will buy them. You would think when that becomes the case they would reevaluate how they would tackle this but nope.
- Status