German MPs vote for new law to fine social media companies over illegal content
bbc.com
bbc.com
We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you arrested for it". Eg Dutch xenophobe politician Geert Wilders got dragged into court twice! (ridiculous, and also countereffective because guess what it did for his ratings)
This sort of stuff is much worse, however. Given the 24 hour deadline, the only way Facebook reasonably can implement this is automation. A computer program determining whether my post is hate speech or satire? Seriously? Computers can't even tell the difference between a puppy and a cupcake. Why does anyone think this is a good idea?
A long time ago I used to hang out on an IRC channel that banned "bad words". The bot was very enthusiastically tuned with conservative American values. There was a user called "War^" but "war" was a forbidden word. Talking to him got you kicked out, mentioning him thrice got you banned.
Obviously, the solution there was simple: leave the IRC channel and never come back. But I'm not sure people will feel they have the same option for their favorite social media.
Don't mistake my intent here - it would vastly understate the case to say merely that I do not love Facebook. But free speech is the wrong line of attack, because that is something which we have no legal precedent for obliging them to provide, and this lack of precedent has enduring value exceeding what we might in the short term realize from its contravention.
Another core American value is independence of thought and action. We are a nation of grown-ass men and women who do not require a company, a government, or any other arbitrary authority to sign off on the exercise of those rights and liberties which are our common birthright.
So if Facebook chooses not to permit its users to say controversial things, the American response is not to go crying to Daddy to make that mean old mister Zuckerberg be nice, but instead to say: "Well, then, you do just as you please - and be damned to you, because I will go and do as I please." And then, suiting action to word, to set up one's own website, where one may speak as one likes without fear of being suppressed by the ukaze of some billionaire overlord. We do, after all, still have an open Internet. I think it would behoove us to use it.
To that last point, let me reiterate that I have no love for Facebook, and would prefer that such a behemoth, opaque monstrosity - with such an astonishing degree of power to mediate the social interactions of more than a quarter of our entire species - not only did not, but could not, exist. That is far too much power to inhere in any single organization.
Where we differ, I think, is in our evaluation of the most useful method of taking that power away from the organization which holds it now. You seem inclined to prefer that government should do so - an obvious answer, to be sure, but in my view fatally flawed insomuch as that, in taking that power away from Facebook, this government would necessarily gather that same power to itself. (Who else, after all, would you have tell Facebook what to do?)
I would rather see that power, not still further agglomerated into a different monolithic bloc of same, but rather atomized. It seems to me much more in accord with American values that this mass power be broken down and distributed among many individuals, such that each may exercise her rights with the maximum liberty to do so, and none may forbid another from doing likewise.
There are some really exciting projects underway right now to build a framework in which this can happen - indeed, a framework in which nothing else can happen, wherein the construction of a Facebook in anything like its present leviathan form is impossible because it has no apparent benefit to offer. This is a very long-term goal, I freely concede! I may not live to see it bear fruit, if indeed it ever succeeds in so doing. But nothing else of which I'm aware offers a better prospect of upholding those American values which my fellows and I hold so dear.
You seem to be very convinced of this. Could you please list one or two concrete cases where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society? I think this could make your argument much stronger.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for...
edit: more examples from some other European countries http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
"We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you arrested for it"."
Therefore my example is germane and quite a clear example given your question.
Here are more examples (again Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Spain):
http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
In the US, the offended person would have to sue the offender for libel or defamation. The State would not be bringing charges because this is not a criminal matter; it is a civil matter. Nor is it so obviously defamation or libel, as you suggest.
The lese majeste law is not a matter of the King suing the offender. It is a matter of the Dutch state pursuing criminal prosecution.
The test for what values we uphold should not always be what has proven to be a good outcome for ourselves or for society.
Your same argument could be used against many human rights. What about torture: can you give me a concrete example of how US torture was bad for society?
Extending your argument from society to individuals, we make the worst tragedies possible. It is an important lesson from the history of Germany itself, in the quote: 'When they came for them, I did not speak, because I was not them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me."
There is value in upholding human rights on principle.
Once you eliminate free speech in cases where it is convenient, you no longer have a free speech principle.
In Germany the thought police has brought people to court for things such as Facebook groups for people who don't like refugees. Maybe that seems fair to you, but then again a comedian also faced prosecution for a poem about Erdogan. Now imagine prosecution for a poem belittling Trump. It's the possibility of that outcome that we want to stay as far away from as possible.
Besides, it seems difficult to believe a legitimate role of government is to protect you from words, and words alone.
Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.
Once you eliminate speech just because you disagree with it, you begin the process of allowing the most powerful to determine that criteria for their own benefit.
I know you don't want to be insulted, or let other people be insulted, but it's a dangerous responisbility to give to government to make them arbiter of what speech is acceptable.
It is important to understand that this is, for now, a matter of a chilling effect. I don't claim that I would be put in jail or fined for my opinions, but I definitely do feel a risk of some authority possibly investigating me. And that is enough to make me not take part in the debate. And I do not see my positions being openly discussed in public, even though I know from private conversations that many, many people hold the same views. This is something that moderates on the other side seem not to understand or believe, because they do not face it.
This has lead to a number of poor outcomes for the societies in Europe. Most importantly there are possible approaches to solving the situation that have not been seriously explored and evaluated (e.g., Australia style migrant centres outside the EU). As a result the European response has been uncontrolled, inefficient and hugely expensive. I believe many more people in real need could have been helped, and many lives saved, by an approach that was not based on accepting unlimited numbers of migrants into Europe.
The second important problem is that it drives the disenfranchised moderates towards the extreme. If you feel like your voice is not heard in the debate, it becomes more likely that you will demonstrate with a protest vote for an extremist.
Personally I am absolutely against this law. Even if you accept the idea of hate speech laws, surely they should be enforced by the courts, not by Facebook?
There is no law in Germany preventing you from voicing your opinion against immigration. We're talking about legally enforced censorship not about media bias. Having said that, I do agree with many things you say, I just think they are not directly relevant to the discussion.
Could you please read my second paragraph. I'm aware the is no law against voicing my opinion on immigration (I'm not against immigration, I'm an immigrant myself). However, I am absolutely not going to publicly voice my opinions because I do not want to risk someone interpreting some part of my point out of context and investigating me for hate speech.
If I recall correctly, the Swastika is banned in Germany, even though it's a symbol with many meanings in many cultures. This means people can't express certain aspects of their cultures, visually, simply because the NSDAP chose to use the same logo. Context matters, you know.
Finally, I heard a law in Germany is about to get passed that is going to make large social networks program bots that automatically ban content based on whether it may contain hate speech or crime. Good satire will disappear from much of the German internet.
Exactly, and that's the reason why you can use the Swastika as much as you want in Germany when the context makes clear that you're not using it for political purposes. These silly strawmen arguments do not help the discussion.
This mostly agrees with the text of the law, which appears to include a provision translating to "... shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes."
Reporting on the law suggests that the purpose is much stronger than simply avoiding its political use, but also to "avert social habitation". In particular, it appears that its use in, say, a video game would in fact be illegal, as Ubisoft assumed with its 2014 release "South Park: The Stick of Truth".
To me, this seems more like reasonable regulation than oppression, although some people confuse these concepts, or have a financial interest in conflating personal freedoms with market deregulation.
The german government is asking for Facebook to promptly remove content that is obviously illegal in Germany (and most of the world), like murder videos, hate speech, etc. Sounds reasonable to me.
TV stations in some (most?) European countries can be held legally responsible for the content they air. This is (fortunately) happening right now where I live, where a private TV station is being investigated for repeatedly airing a program where a psychologist spreads hate speech and fake science like "people who use marijuana have gay sex" and "gipsies don't work and live off the rest of us"; the person's professional license has been revoked as a consequence, so the TV station are being held responsible for airing blatantly illegal content by a disaccredited "psychologist".
That's why media needs basic regulation, IMO.
After reporting numerous posts for hate speech and personal insults has zero, Facebook's response is always "no breach of our terms". But it's a breach of our society's terms, and fortunately we are still (mostly) held to the rule of law.
The problem is not one of morals, as I doubt fb wants this type off content at all.
I think it's possibly unreasonable. It's fb vs the world quite literally. It's the nature off it's design.
What's next? Police gets fined if they can't catch a criminal within a week?
What about a fireman getting fined if he can't put out a fire within 20 minutes.
All these things share an uncontrollable and unpredictable situation.
You can't ignore the complex design off millions off people streaming millions of text inputs daily and checking it all 100%. That's monkey reasoning, black and white thinking fallacies.
Fb should give insight and show how they battle it, but imo it's childish to randomly give 24 hours. At least come with an argument or 'standard' if u will (ie. 1 content checker person per 1k posts or w/e).
If the system is good enough for you to make hundreds of billions of some years, yes, you should expend a lot to conform with society's needs.
> You can't ignore the complex design off millions off people streaming millions of text inputs daily and checking it all 100%.
You can't allow a company to have so much power over millions of people just because it is difficult to make it conform and keep working. Guess what, find a better solution. The world is not 1% better with all this live Facebook BS, I'd not give a care if it was all shutdown. It is not a free speech problem if they are exploiting it for their own benefit.
I don't want it to be illegal, because policing it requires the instatement of an automatic censorship framework, that even if it works perfectly, can be trivially re-used for stifling more speech. Not regulating media has bad consequences, but regulating media has even worse consequences. You can't save people from themselves.
Social Media giants ignoring local laws, while being occupied with taking over the world truly makes for a great Cinderella story -- but maybe part of growing is also growing up and preparing the business to comply with local laws, instead of waving the "this is so unreasonable" card when you didn't do so for a decade and then eventually get fined for it.
A similar discussion can also be seen with Brexit in the UK: hate crimes have been steadily increasing since the Brexit campaign, and many people have been pointing at the divisive and malicious discourse surrounding that as one of the causes.
So yes, while I agree with you that speech in general should never be prohibited, and I also agree that automated takedowns of content are not desirable (mainly because once that's in place, the algorithms then become the law -- and that is not where I want to be); I also think that companies that facilitate large-scale communication between citizens can not hide behind "free speech" arguments to completely disavow any and all responsibility for consequences of speech on their platform.
Of course, most politicians involved in making this happen won't ever have to deal with one iota of the inconvenience they bestow over their general population.
What does "obviously illegal" even mean? And is it like "obvious porn"? Because politicians themselves seem to be doing a terrible job at recognizing that, too:
> During the various internet censorship cases the ACLU brought, we asked the government to identify speech in each category, and they were largely unable to do so. For example, they said that an online photo on Playboy’s website of a topless woman was not harmful to minors, but a virtually identical photo on Penthouse’s website was.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170626/16543937676/how-a...
Many politicians, especially in the mainstream, operate on a 'lowest possible effort' basis to pretend they're giving a damn about their electorate, which is why so many completely awful laws and trade deals get passed just by giving it a friendly-sounding name, all while pocketing a hefty 'extra payment' for their collaboration.
I'll be more surprised to find out that something concrete was done about the cause of extremism in Europe than to find out that there was a ridiculously large network of bribed politicians involved in passing this law.
Not "will". It's been happening for many years. There's the "Right to Be Forgotten". The US blackholes lots of stuff that it considers illegal. At least China only censors its own people.
The only hope is overlay networks that can't be censored.
And that's not going to end well.
In the law, costs of complying were estimated to be 28 Mio. € per year (for all social networks combined). I don't know how accurate this is but probably not orders of magnitude off.
I can imagine some amusing outcomes. Sure, Germany can censor "hate speech", however it wants to define that. But the "hate speech" will still be there. Germans just won't see it, unless they lie about their location and hit Facebook via VPNs or Tor. So someone could spread malicious rumors about you, and you might not even know it.
Maybe this will convince facebook to remove decapitation videos.
e.g. Here is the UK subsidiary of Facebook - I'd expect there to be a German equivalent:
And move all operations out of Germany.
Maybe blacklist all German IPs, just for jolly ;)
Edit: Also, Facebook does have a Tor onion gateway. For users in places that block access. That'd work as well for Germans as well as Chinese etc.
At some point, Internet-based firms will need to take a stand on this. Otherwise, they'll just get pecked to death.
https://www.facebook.com/shiploveahoi https://www.firmenwissen.de/az/firmeneintrag/20355/215148792...
Germany has seized assets of corporations (for example, they did seize an airplane, to force the airline to pay back the cost of a ticket to a traveller whose flight was cancelled) before to enforce regulations.
Facebook will definitely want to avoid their hard- and software being seized and sold off to pay for a potential fine.
They might have some leased servers, but afaik none of their custom built data centers are located there. Compared to abandoning a bespoke facility, packing up and moving out of a server farm is little more than a hassle.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/the-facebook-data-center-...
And just seizing and selling their IP would be enough to encourage facebook not to violate the law.
Everyone would love buying their software and trained models.
Kim Dotcom is a good example.
Companies having to follow the law of where they provide their services is a far deal less prohibitive.
And, frankly said, I'd love it if Google, Facebook etc would leave the European market — as local competitors would appear very quickly, and, due to the huge size of the European market — would actually become viable competitors to the American companies even in the international market.
Even so, it's debatable how much actual authority the entirety of the EU has in this matter. They're not guaranteed cooperation via US courts and public institutions. They could threaten to wholesale block Facebook (or [insert other tech property here]), but I'm not sure that's realistic.
All in all I suspect we'll soon find out whether or not the EU is in fact a complete paper tiger : if they lose against Google & Facebook, they'll be unmasked as weak chest thumpers.
The law only needs to hold up and silence dissent until Merkle is re-elected in a few months. Rank cynicism.
Censorship and fines galore. Just this week: a €2.4B fine from the EU for Google's integrated shopping view. A Canadian ruling stating that Google had to enforce Canadian censorship worldwide. And now, huge fines for content that the German government finds objectionable.
How long before google, Facebook, etc. retreat to the US entirely (or even to some liberal island nation)? Sooner or later, the economic benefit of a data company having a physical presence somewhere is outweighed by the cost of overbearing censorship laws. Maybe it's time for the Sultanate of Kinakuta to become a reality.
Google and Facebook should start investing heavily in anti-censorship technology a la Tor and I2P. Sadly, I fear that this may soon become necessary in "liberal" nations like Germany. It's already necessary in the U.K., with draconian anti-pornography and anti-cryptography laws.
Love that Sultanate of Kinakuta reference :)
The comments disappear before I manage to answer to them.
What sort of Soviet-alike censorship is that?
It just seems that way. Alas it's a tempting conclusion to jump to.
Of the 9 comments that disappeared in this thread, 8 were deleted by their authors. 1 was flagged by users. Another comment was killed by software and thus never became visible in the first place, but we've rescued that one.
We don't delete anything outright, except by request of the author. If you set 'showdead' to 'yes' in your profile you can see all the comments killed by user flags, moderators, and software. "[dead]" means the comment is only visible to users logged in with 'showdead'. "[flagged]" means users flagged it. "[flagged] [dead]" means so many users flagged it that the comment was killed. If you just see "[dead]" but not "[flagged]", either it was killed by software or by mods.
When you see a [dead] comment that you think shouldn't be dead, assuming you have > 30 karma you can vouch for it by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then clicking 'vouch'. If vouches override flags, the comment will be restored.
Before you make any statements about his this could potentially suppress voices and opinions, you can always make your own site. Even if the government did not interfere with these sites, the sites themselves totally have the right to regulate everything that's being posted. This is only to encourage this because companies like facebook didn't seem to give much of a damn about regulation.
Social media allows you to use a pseudonym which makes it possible to share an opinion (and thus, to a tiny extend, shape society) without the people who know you in "real life" learning about it. If you have a personal website you have, by German law, to publish your name and address on this website. As a result, people can google what you write.
So if you want to discuss an opinion that people you interact with in real life don't accept you have to accept that they could find your posts. This, naturally, could have a chilling effect leading to you not writing about issues you care about.