I presume that is on the premissis that every other state / regime will be able to leverage that deal between Google & China to black out whatever they think is not PC in their country.
The legal process was completely removed. They use this to help their election campaigns by branding government critical content as extremist and having it removed without due process.
You'd think that when they remove content like that, they'd report the offenders to legal authorities -because after all, they are only allowed to remove content that is clearly illegal- but in most cases they don't. They just want the content gone and move on, which makes it very clear that this is just a censorship tool and their generous interpretation of illegal hate speech wouldn't hold up in any court.
It does point toward a bigger issue, where Facebook is used and trusted by so many users that they do not access alternative sources of information.
The situation is absurd. Facebook is legally required to pay for censorship by companies with close ties to the government.
Directly from the devil himself.
Arvato belongs to Bertelsmann. Here's a German article about how close they are to the government.
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-Bertelsma...
And that's exactly the problem with it: It cannot be clearly defined and everyone is offended by different things, which makes it a perfect tool to censor just about everything you want.
Government critical pages with millions of followers were deleted, playing directly in the hands of the (re-elected) government.
I don't want to be the judge of what's reasonable and what's not. As you see, having any kind of hate speech laws can and will be abused and end in censorship and stupid political games, as almost anything can be labelled as hate speech. It only depends on the perspective.
Personally, I'd go with the American model of anything goes. I don't think it's great, but it's better than this. Hate speech laws don't change anything - there will always be people who say something stupid or something you don't like. I prefer offensive people any day to people who deliberately misinterpret things and paint themselves or others as victims to discredit their opponents.
Well, hate speech is not about offending people... It's about inciting violence. A good example would be a nazi or ISIS leader publishing a video calling on their followers to attack, say, Jews, homosexuals and journalists. Hate speech laws exist to forbid such communications, because they are likely to result in violence against others. Of course there are many cases which are less clear cut than my example, where it's debatable (and hotly debated) how much violence is actually caused... but that's very different from debating "offense" or "misunderstandings", which have nothing to do with hate speech laws.
> Government critical pages with millions of followers were deleted, playing directly in the hands of the (re-elected) government.
Can you give us sources on this please?
> As you see, having any kind of hate speech laws can and will be abused and end in censorship
Not really, you haven't provided any evidence or details.
https://i.imgur.com/mY0iBWU.jpg
That's an earlier screenshot of the page. It had about 2 million likes at the end. They posted provocative content, government critical stuff, some of it true, some of it false and some of it utter nonsense. None of which is illegal. Welcome to election campaigns around 2018. It's not our fault they have sunk to such a low level, but that's what it is and there's no consolation price for being the good guy.
This page had more readers than all but the biggest printed newspapers, which is quite a feat. Then one day their page was disabled and later deleted.
No real person has been and would be prosecuted for what they did. Personally, I think their content was crap and didn't follow it, but that's besides the point. They did what most politicians and official newspapers do to get attention and clicks.
This was in the early days, when the law was in planning, but not officially passed. Since then, many other pages like that simply disappeared.
" Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."