3 ms·

> Twitter being forced to delete It is not at all though. The law very clearly spells out that for unclear cases (and the satire tweet definitely falls under t

> Twitter being forced to delete It is not at all though. The law very clearly spells out that for unclear cases (and the satire tweet definitely falls under that) there are significant exceptions and leeway.

Amezarak 9y ago
Twitter is strongly incentivized to err on the side of caution (for them) by deleting in unclear cases. If they wrongly believe a tweet is legal, they are punished. If they wrongly believe a tweet is illegal, nothing happens. To pretend a company in this situation is not being legally forced to delete "protected" satire is sophistry. The only rational thing to do in that situation is delete all tweets anyone could possibly claim are illegal if there's the slightest bit of grey area to them. The matter is made worse by time limits: they have to delete NOW, not have staff discussions and legal assessments. The supporters of the law said exactly what you said, ignoring that reality. The result is in the article. Additionally, from outside Germany, this looks less like "stopping hate speech" and more like enforcing the "basic consensus" of the CDU cited in the article.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  You're incorrect. They have no reason to fear punishment from a wrong call. For one, the law doesn't require deletion. They just have to make it publically inaccessible pending outcome of inspection. And if they're unsure about the legality they can punt it to another org and won't suffer consequences. In fact, the law even stipulates that the data must be retained for 10 weeks to allow further action.
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    > They have no reason to fear punishment from a wrong call. If they make the wrong call, they face fines. The supreme arbiter of what is lawful and unlawful is not Twitter; it is the German courts, but Twitter is the one responsible for removing unlawful tweets, and Twitter is the one who is fined if they do not remove unlawful tweets promptly. Twitter is not fined if they wrongly remove lawful tweets. Especially (but not only because of) given the volume of tweets and reports, the only rational course of action for Twitter is to delete/block if there's the slightest chance a court somewhere might declare it unlawful. Here is the full text of the law: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html > For one, the law doesn't require deletion. They just have to make it publically inaccessible pending outcome of inspection. I think everyone understands that, on the scale of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., that deletion entails precisely that: making content publicly inaccessible, even if the company can hypothetically restore it. Not even on that scale: it's pretty typical to have a "deleted" flag in your database for content for normal web applications. More to the point, supporters of the law have claimed over and over that it won't affect legitimate content, but here is exactly an example that the opponents of the law were talking about that we're commenting on right now.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      > legitimate content Having seen the tweet in question i'm not sure it is legitimate content. As for the rest: Eh, can't be arsed to try and argue more.

Amezarak 9y ago

Twitter is strongly incentivized to err on the side of caution (for them) by deleting in unclear cases. If they wrongly believe a tweet is legal, they are punished. If they wrongly believe a tweet is illegal, nothing happens. To pretend a company in this situation is not being legally forced to delete "protected" satire is sophistry. The only rational thing to do in that situation is delete all tweets anyone could possibly claim are illegal if there's the slightest bit of grey area to them. The matter is made worse by time limits: they have to delete NOW, not have staff discussions and legal assessments. The supporters of the law said exactly what you said, ignoring that reality. The result is in the article. Additionally, from outside Germany, this looks less like "stopping hate speech" and more like enforcing the "basic consensus" of the CDU cited in the article.

Mithaldu 9y ago
You're incorrect. They have no reason to fear punishment from a wrong call. For one, the law doesn't require deletion. They just have to make it publically inaccessible pending outcome of inspection. And if they're unsure about the legality they can punt it to another org and won't suffer consequences. In fact, the law even stipulates that the data must be retained for 10 weeks to allow further action.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  > They have no reason to fear punishment from a wrong call. If they make the wrong call, they face fines. The supreme arbiter of what is lawful and unlawful is not Twitter; it is the German courts, but Twitter is the one responsible for removing unlawful tweets, and Twitter is the one who is fined if they do not remove unlawful tweets promptly. Twitter is not fined if they wrongly remove lawful tweets. Especially (but not only because of) given the volume of tweets and reports, the only rational course of action for Twitter is to delete/block if there's the slightest chance a court somewhere might declare it unlawful. Here is the full text of the law: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html > For one, the law doesn't require deletion. They just have to make it publically inaccessible pending outcome of inspection. I think everyone understands that, on the scale of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., that deletion entails precisely that: making content publicly inaccessible, even if the company can hypothetically restore it. Not even on that scale: it's pretty typical to have a "deleted" flag in your database for content for normal web applications. More to the point, supporters of the law have claimed over and over that it won't affect legitimate content, but here is exactly an example that the opponents of the law were talking about that we're commenting on right now.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    > legitimate content Having seen the tweet in question i'm not sure it is legitimate content. As for the rest: Eh, can't be arsed to try and argue more.