Germany tells social media companies to delete hate speech or face fines

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
An irrelevant factoid when considering that this topic pertains to developed countries in general, most notably (with regard to the topic) Germany. Fancy a stab at the rest of my previous post now?


Edit, it is relevant because there's a developed country (specific not in general...) where what you said isn't true.

The rest of your post, yes I agree that communication can have damaging effects. So can the governments restriction of it. I don't know what else to say, I disagree with giving governments the right to dictate what is acceptable speech.

What if we did that to our government, said here we trust you to govern the spoken word. Trump would jump on that in a heartbeat to say the Russia matter is fake news and slanderous propaganda and now it's outlawed, no more discussion.
 
Last edited:

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
It should be noted that the reason behind this law is a push from Jews and the trend of Russian fake news reporters inciting German Neo Nazi groups to violence.

So, should German say fuck you to the Jews and have the same idiots as usual whine about Germany not protecting them or should they institute a law and have the same idiots as usual whine about how it's an attack of free speech?

Next up, slippery slope arguments about how to regulate actual threats to Jewish groups and incitement to attacks on them leads to the ban of free thought.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,992
23,792
136
It should be noted that the reason behind this law is a push from Jews and the trend of Russian fake news reporters inciting German Neo Nazi groups to violence.

So, should German say fuck you to the Jews and have the same idiots as usual whine about Germany not protecting them or should they institute a law and have the same idiots as usual whine about how it's an attack of free speech?

Next up, slippery slope arguments about how to regulate actual threats to Jewish groups and incitement to attacks on them leads to the ban of free thought.

Underroos will be along shortly with a video from a long hair (probably actually underroos) whining about just how it is a ban on free will.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
It should be noted that the reason behind this law is a push from Jews and the trend of Russian fake news reporters inciting German Neo Nazi groups to violence.

So, should German say fuck you to the Jews and have the same idiots as usual whine about Germany not protecting them or should they institute a law and have the same idiots as usual whine about how it's an attack of free speech?

Next up, slippery slope arguments about how to regulate actual threats to Jewish groups and incitement to attacks on them leads to the ban of free thought.


The government getting to decide the public narrative, getting to quell any opposing opinion, and getting to decide what is "real" vs "fake" news is what lead to the Nazi's rise in power and the holocaust. Ceding control to the government is a fuck you to the Jews.
 

Flapdrol1337

Golden Member
May 21, 2014
1,677
93
91
Facebook bullshit bubbles is a problem, as demonstrated by the idiot who thought hillary clinton was running a pedophilia ring in a pizza place.

I don't really know a solution, but facebook isn't going to do something about it by itself since they make money from it and fighting it would cost money. Let's see what they do with these laws in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Facebook bullshit bubbles is a problem, as demonstrated by the idiot who thought hillary clinton was running a pedophilia ring in a pizza place.

I don't really know a solution, but facebook isn't going to do something about it by itself since they make money from it and fighting it would cost money. Let's see what they do with these laws in place.


Who gets to decide the wheat from the chaff on what is or isn't bullshit? What makes their opinion the right one and do you trust them unwaveringly?

This is what happens when government tries to control speech:

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Germany is also in the unique position of having Hitler and the Nazis in their history. This must create a degree of concern that is unique to them as a nation. I don't agree with their approach, but they have that unique history. Where if Hitler had not been so arrogant as to try and take on Russia and the UK at the same time, there is a fair chance the world would be speaking German and every Jewish person would have been exterminated. It must inform a more heightened disdain for hate groups in their country having a segment of dark history built on an ideology of hate. In such a climate, I can see this sort of action being considered, even if it's misguided.

Conside the future of the US, if democracy manages to survive the Trump regime and it is not a herald of a decline into fanaticism, expect to see new actions taken to confront narratives from demagogues there in the future.

The problem with any mechanisms like these, is that even if it is initially used with the best of intentions and delivers a net positive, all it takes is someone else at the reins to use it to silence anyone for any reason.
Consider that if free speech leads to hate speech and Nazi Germany, and the suppression of 'hate' speech leads to the Nazi Germany, how do nations maintain freedom from becoming fascist etc. states? What if the answer could destroy the economy, do you think any would be long allowed to push that answer? The thing I notice about free speech is that it is allowed so long as it's not costing, anybody with power, money. What do people most value, universal freedom or their own? Why would that be?
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,476
523
126
This site censors things.

I'd rather see sites enforce their own policing of hate than the government imposing fines.

Except then the bias of those in charge of sites comes into play. And those that made up the "things" that are censored.

Not saying I disagree with you, just that you trade one problem for another. It's still personal discretion of what is considered over the line, and they can allow or disallow it depending on who you are, which is where bias becomes a problem. This already happens on sites.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
The government getting to decide the public narrative, getting to quell any opposing opinion, and getting to decide what is "real" vs "fake" news is what lead to the Nazi's rise in power and the holocaust. Ceding control to the government is a fuck you to the Jews.

No, the law is equal to everyone and it's general so it doesn't actually say who gets to say what, just a general rule about what is allowed.

Jews are happy about this but you don't get it and do not care to know why either, do you? Russia is actively supporting the Neo Nazi movement and monetarily supporting their parties as well as pushing an agenda on both social media platforms and fake news sites like abc.com.co that you probably have fallen for once or twice. In the UK BNP and UKIP enjoys large contributions from Russia.

Fake news like "Jews in Berlin are targeting German banks" with links to sites that people such as yourself would absolutely believe are real news sites leads to increased support for the Neo Nazi movement and the Jews are not happy about it.

This is more a big FUCK YOU to the Russians than anyone else.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,577
9,268
136
Edit, it is relevant because there's a developed country (specific not in general...) where what you said isn't true.

Oh? Please state which developed country has no limits on freedom of speech. Then re-read what I wrote.

Hint: It's not the US.

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

The rest of your post, yes I agree that communication can have damaging effects. So can the governments restriction of it. I don't know what else to say, I disagree with giving governments the right to dictate what is acceptable speech.

Which takes you straight back to my first point, which you'll need to acknowledge first.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
Consider that if free speech leads to hate speech and Nazi Germany, and the suppression of 'hate' speech leads to the Nazi Germany, how do nations maintain freedom from becoming fascist etc. states? What if the answer could destroy the economy, do you think any would be long allowed to push that answer? The thing I notice about free speech is that it is allowed so long as it's not costing, anybody with power, money. What do people most value, universal freedom or their own? Why would that be?

Like everything there is no perfect answer, and almost always the most ideal approach involves a balance. Swinging the pendulum all the way one way or another rarely is the best approach. A free for all where you can take to the street, screaming racial epithets at people and claiming free speech, is bound to result in violence at some point. Or a free market fanaticism, thinking you just let the 'market' take care of everything, free of regulation and unhindered driven by human greed.

Neither example works and that is why we put in place sanity checks to try and maintain some semblance of order. The avoidance of slipping into a dangerous climate is found in striking that balance, not dialing the needle all the way to one side or the other, which guarantees creating a crisis. At the end of the day we are just another violent mammalian species of the Earth, more capable of becoming vicious because we are uniquely susceptible to irrationality, some degree of self-regulation is necessary for the survival of our species. Even as the apex predator we are fundamentally under perpetual threat because we are self-destructive.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
This is more a big FUCK YOU to the Russians than anyone else.


A big fuck you to the Russians by silencing your own people. Just like the patriot act was a big fuck you to the terrorists by spying on our own people. How is it that we keep on losing?

As far as the law being equal to everyone that's an ideal not grounded in reality. Here in the states our laws are equal to everyone but are applied unequally. Poors and minorities feel a harsher impact. Laws are only as equal as however the administrator wants to apply it.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
A big fuck you to the Russians by silencing your own people. Just like the patriot act was a big fuck you to the terrorists by spying on our own people. How is it that we keep on losing?

As far as the law being equal to everyone that's an ideal not grounded in reality. Here in the states our laws are equal to everyone but are applied unequally. Poors and minorities feel a harsher impact. Laws are only as equal as however the administrator wants to apply it.

Jesus Christ you are a daft one.

Try to follow along here, the Neo Nazi groups that are targeted here are supported by the Russians and the Russians provide the links to fake news sites used by the Neo Nazi groups in Germany.

Your sordid ideas about how law works may apply in the US but hardly in Germany they have the Staatsanwaltschaft and it has to abide by the Legalitätsprinzip which means that the prosecutors office has to investigate any criminal offence as soon as it learns about it. The kind of bias that comes with politically coloured prosecutors does not exist in Germany.

I also noted that "false statements of fact" is not protected speech in the US except when it comes to lying about government so the type of fake news that they spread about Jews in Germany has actually been illegal in the US since 1974.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/business/germany-facebook-google-twitter.html?_r=0


The thought police are making progress. Quite the powerful position to get to decide what constitutes extremist and what doesn't.



BERLIN — Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.

The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.

But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.

Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.

There's good reason why sons of the reich weren't able to implement jewish segregation as the sons of the confederacy did.

Friends of the confederacy sure are real big on "free speech" as they were on "state rights", gee I wonder why.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Germany is also in the unique position of having Hitler and the Nazis in their history. This must create a degree of concern that is unique to them as a nation. I don't agree with their approach, but they have that unique history. Where if Hitler had not been so arrogant as to try and take on Russia and the UK at the same time, there is a fair chance the world would be speaking German and every Jewish person would have been exterminated. It must inform a more heightened disdain for hate groups in their country having a segment of dark history built on an ideology of hate. In such a climate, I can see this sort of action being considered, even if it's misguided.

Conside the future of the US, if democracy manages to survive the Trump regime and it is not a herald of a decline into fanaticism, expect to see new actions taken to confront narratives from demagogues there in the future.

The problem with any mechanisms like these, is that even if it is initially used with the best of intentions and delivers a net positive, all it takes is someone else at the reins to use it to silence anyone for any reason.

Germany provides great empirical evidence that denazification methods work, in stark contrast to what happened in the US post civil-war.

I suppose just as with any effective tool there's risk of misuse, but rather foolish to ban all tools.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Except then the bias of those in charge of sites comes into play. And those that made up the "things" that are censored.

Not saying I disagree with you, just that you trade one problem for another. It's still personal discretion of what is considered over the line, and they can allow or disallow it depending on who you are, which is where bias becomes a problem. This already happens on sites.
I'm not trading anything, actually. I'm saying the people who provide the press get to decide what is printed. It has always been this way, and always will be.

The very idea that "bias" needs to be avoided at all costs is absurd. No one wants to be neutral in the first place. Critical thinkers will compensate for bias as they always have done. Zealots will only feed their biases and not allow their bubbles to be burst, also as always.

The goal of the media/press should never be neutrality. It should be conveying the news of the day in a way that explains to the audience what happened. If you only want plain recording of facts there are plenty of ways to get those in many situations. I'd rather have experienced and intelligent people relay the facts with context and analysis.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I'm not trading anything, actually. I'm saying the people who provide the press get to decide what is printed. It has always been this way, and always will be.

The situation here literally can't be more obvious. Sons of the confederacy know their message is at risk and thus throw up all sorts of pretense about "free speech", same as they did about "state rights", or same as their concern about "welfare queens" and so on.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
It's amazing how some of you so callously disregard one of our fundamental rights as citizens/humans (yes in regards to the US). There's a message you don't like so that makes it ok to shut it down, to not allow people the freedom of expression.

It's so absurd to even have this arguement. I don't agree with those espousing racism (since that seems to be the trump card gotcha of the moment) but I do absolutely agree with someone's right to express it. Good lord people, read the book 1984. We don't want the thought police.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
It's amazing how some of you so callously disregard one of our fundamental rights as citizens/humans (yes in regards to the US). There's a message you don't like so that makes it ok to shut it down, to not allow people the freedom of expression.

It's so absurd to even have this arguement. I don't agree with those espousing racism (since that seems to be the trump card gotcha of the moment) but I do absolutely agree with someone's right to express it. Good lord people, read the book 1984. We don't want the thought police.

People who politically align with racists for a tax cut love to argue that denazification led to 1984. Can't blame them for doing so if they get away with it.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
I'm not aligning with racists and I'm all for progressive revenue increases (tax the rich more, I'm all for it), I'm also for allowing people the freedom of though and expression - even that which I don't agree with. Stripping people of that right enters into a totalitarian government in some false pretense of a utopia. Whether it be the US or Germany or wherever, the population falls into that trap like a bunch of lemmings.

Freedom of speech and expression should be a fundamental human right, I'm not sure what else to say.