19 ms·
German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account
- blattimwind 9y agoThe NetzDG in its current form is a disgrace for the state of law. I think an improvement in this area would be needed, but the NetzDG law is mind-boggingly stupid and inaccurately formulated.
- nwatson 9y agoWhether the satirical Twitter account should be shut down or not ... satire's not very effective per Malcolm Gladwell's "Revisionist History" podcast at [0] (automated lossy transcript at [1]) ... targets of the satire often find the satire humorous themselves, and can find enough "truth" in exaggerated viewpoints to reinforce those views rather than call them into question. [0] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox [1] https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm-gladwell-s2-e10-revisionist-history-podcast-transcript-37119b0bf8ae https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm-gladwe...
- AndrewUnmuted 9y agoWhether or not speech is effective at achieving its ultimate goal is an entirely irrelevant issue here. "Hate Speech" is extremely ineffective at promoting hate, but here we are.
- randyrand 9y agoHate speech does not refer to spreading hate, really. It's just a misnomer.
- soperj 9y agoI personally wouldn't trust anything that Malcolm Gladwell says on the face of it. He has through out his books used anecdotes as proof, and often cites correlation as causation. He spins a great yarn, but that's all it is.
- aceofspad4s 9y agoHeh, I still can't believe they have "outlawed racism". That's like outlawing any other political opinion. How is that possible?
- rubatuga 9y agoSince it makes people fear for their lives.
- bluthru 9y agoRacism: can make people fear for their lives. Multiculturalism: can make people fear for their lives. People are only allowed to express their fears about one of those issues, and the government decides which of those fears is valid. This is despite the fact that both racism and multiculturalism can make people fear for their lives. That's utterly dystopian. In general with social media moderating, I'm very much against harassment but I believe people should be able to freely express their beliefs. If you're not following a person who you disagree with, what does it hurt?
- rubatuga 9y agoI am curious how multiculturalism makes people fear for their life. Do you mean that a certain group of people may lose their lifestyle? Or do you actually mean life-death scenarios? I am trying quite hard, but I cannot think of any situation of multiculturalism that makes somebody fear their own death. Unless, if in fact you are talking about violence and crime from immigrants, you are free to express it. Furthermore, the principles of racism and multiculturalism are so different, that it’s interesting that you compare them. Almost always racism can be shown to be linked to violence and murder, but multicultralism is a policy that my country, Canada, has successfully modeled. I have never feared for my life. I think it is safe to say that although the implementation of multiculturalism policies may be flawed in some countries, multiculturalism itself doesn’t cause life-death scenarios.
- bluthru 9y ago
- everdev 9y agoThis is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech. Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.
- sampo 9y ago> Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? If you resort to fascist techniques, then fascist ideas clearly have taken hold.
- MollyR 9y agoFascist techniques won't stop it then, it will only amplify them. The fascist kind of suppressing (usually disagreements with the establishment or status quo) speech usually ends in violence and revolution.
- IBM 9y agoGermany does have a good record with the former considering that they've completely denazified themselves while remaining a liberal democracy. The fact is that Germany is the perfect counterpoint to the, frankly tired, slippery slope arguments made by the libertarians of Silicon Valley. And I enjoy seeing them try to explain it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- akerro 9y agoHa, great! ^ see what I did there? One will say I support censorship, other will say it was sarcasm, another will stay silent.
- netsharc 9y ago> A Twitter spokesman said the company did not comment on individual accounts, for reasons of privacy and security. This line irked me, what has society become when cu*ts can lie to your face knowing full well that they're full of shit, and that you know this fact as well, but the also know you won't challenge them?
- marcoperaza 9y agoShow me a committee you think qualified to determine what is hate speech, and I will show you a group fallen men, like the rest of us, who will ultimately abuse their power for political ends.
- icebraining 9y agoOf course, the same is true for any power that any group (or individual) might have. You need something more to distinguish this particular case.
- marcoperaza 9y agoCensorship attacks the very ability to question the actions of those with power.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- shaki-dora 9y agoThat's obviously stupid. But it's day two, and Twitter is likely to get their procedures in order, just like they (and Facebook etc) have previously done when implementing their own content policies. The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. Statements that fall under the definition have always been illegal. People always ran the risk of prosecution when calling for genocide etc. As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago. What the law tries to accomplish is similar to the DMCA, i. e. to force companies to take steps to address criminal activity on their platforms when such is reported. I know there are many who disagree with laws limiting hate speech. But this is not that debate.
- nsnick 9y agoTwitter should not enforce ridiculous German laws. The tech companies need to call the bluff of countries that demand censorship.
- rimliu 9y agoSo you say thech companies are above the law? What could go wrong…
- nsnick 9y agoCertainly not. Germany can block twitter, but I don't think the German people will accept that. Countries that love censorship need to realize that if they want to be part of the global discourse, they need to be part of all of the global discourse.
- somenewacc 9y agoI'm not sure that calls for genocide are part of the global discourse.
- abiox 9y agothis seems like a red herring or something... are 'calls for genocide' actually a thing worth caring about? is there a legitimate possibility that, say, bob goes on twitter and says 'kill all romanians!' and suddenly there's a genocide of romanians? it's doesn't make sense. i mean, i get that it's attempting to appeal to one's aversion to a very bad idea, but random bob can't cause a genocide. a strong dictatorship a la hitler or stalin on the other hand... well, that's a much bigger problem than trying to regulate mean words.
- theafroc 9y agoFree speech doesn’t mean the right to be on twitter
- Grollicus 9y agoLOL they managed to get reuters. Banning messages via NetzDG is on message basis, that means single tweets get removed. Here a whole account got banned which is twitter SOP when accounts violate their TOS. Because the new NetzDG came into effect this month now every media in germany is confused. Seems like the international ones follow suit. Also the Titanic account (the satire account) got - wrongly - banned some time before so it propably was some kind of repeat offender thing
- blowski 9y agoI think the article is saying Twitter banned the account at least partly as a consequence of the legislation, because they were worried about being fined.
- Grollicus 9y agoThat does not make sense whatsoever. They should have just hidden the tweet then. They have built technology for that - I have seen some tweets that got banned because of the NetzDG. The law is very controversal and is making waves in germany. This article just chose a terribly example - but then again thats propably iconic for most of the fears about this law.
- randyrand 9y agoI'm so very glad the USA founders made the first amendment. Other countries are not as lucky as we are.
- sabertoothed 9y agoYou do understand that there is no 100% free speech in the US either, right? Or in any other country for that matter. And that is a _good_ thing.
- danschumann 9y agoThe problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I can't correct them when they're wrong if they don't expose their opinions. And what about having an argument? Someone could accuse you of a crime if they misinterpret what you say. That's the real problem here. You can say something with no hateful intent, but people can interpret it with vigorous hate. It's a really stupid law.
- Mithaldu 9y ago> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. I keep seeing this statement, but all i can think is: Fuck, i wish i was lucky enough to have so few racists around me to be able to think i can spare the time and mental health for additional ones. Good for you, be glad you apparently have few to none racists around you, so you don't know what it's like when there's tons of them and they all talk unhindered. Edit: LMAO, i do wonder what kind of people i managed to upset with this.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. As far as I can tell, that's not true of the German law in question, though if you think it is true of that law (not some abstract hypothetical “hate speech” law straw man), please explain how, citing the relevant provisions of the law and explaining how they produce the unequal results that concern you.
- olivermarks 9y agoThat term 'hate speech' - what does it actually mean? This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in limiting the online Overton Window to a massive bland snooze fest. The current joy of the internet is being able to read all sorts of perspectives from 'sensible' to radical and I really hope that continues...I worry for all the citizen journalists and investigators who have been so magnificent in the current western 'glasnost' era online... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
- darklajid 9y agoFree Speech (using capitals for a reason) is a US centric concept whenever it comes up here and you're from SF (according to Twitter). That just doesn't apply here. This Free Speech never existed in the Germany I grew up in and it's not something that I ever felt needed. The incident here is a mistake, a strange overreaction - maybe even by Twitter? - and hopefully will be corrected promptly. So while I understand that you might be unfamiliar with the underlying laws in Germany: I wouldn't want to trade them in. Edit: I fully support the restriction of Free Speech and prosecution of hate speech. I'm not a fan of the new 'delete content online' NetzDG thing
- olivermarks 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... 'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...
- darklajid 9y agoThat link's number 2 seems to apply (and explicitly talks about restrictions)? 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. For the hate speech law [√] prescribed by law [√] in the interests of national security [√] in the interests of public safety You can disagree whether the lower two points apply - I'll argue that these are the reasons behind the law in the first place - but the first one is quite clear I think. Freedom of Expression within boundaries. Restricted Freedom of Expression?
- singularity2001 9y agoIs there a social media in Germany that does not censor?
- cmurf 9y agoTwitter's TOS cannot be taken seriously when it comes to abusive speech. They apply their rules arbitrarily. While I think it's never inappropriate to punch a Nazi (self avowed variety anyway), I'm definitely on the side of letting Nazis have free speech. It's best when the cockroaches are scurrying around in public, rather than hiding in the wood work. And as it turns out, the U.S. has a long history of fascists engaged in crimes, theft and murder, and have plotted the overthrow of the government - same as Germany where these ideas are illegal. So which method actually inhibits Nazis? Neither. But at least one is cheaper, and at least with one you've got an example that most every one else, not merely just the government, will point to as what not to be. Unless you wanna get punched.
- yoz-y 9y agoWait but... isn't this journal considered "newsworthy" and thus able to publish whatever they want? There is at least one person out there publishing hate speech in a non-satirical way and getting away with it on an almost daily basis.