7 ms·

> There are already laws against defamation and "volksverhetzung" Exactly. There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've jus

by hh3k0 9y ago

> There are already laws against defamation and "volksverhetzung" Exactly. There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. Instead they introduced this new shady law, which essentially turns social network companies into a part of the judicial branch. The situation now is exactly as you have described it -- the companies fear the German fines and act overzealously. Perhaps an outsourced, overzealous judicial branch is exactly what the German government wanted? As they're free of the restraints that bind the official judicial branch.

scrollaway 9y ago
How big are the fines? When companies left and right write off fines as business expenses, what makes those different?
- Tomte 9y ago
  Up to 50 million Euros for repeated offenses.
yorwba 9y ago
> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines for failing to delete obviously illegal content and none for just deleting everything that is reported and not obviously legal. The law makes provisions for handing over tricky cases to an external agency, but expected the companies to jointly set it up themselves ("regulated self-regulation"), which they didn't do; likely because the people checking reports at such an agency are legally mandated to be competent. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  But there always was a very clear procedure for reporting illegal content: You visit your local police station and tell them.
  - hwh 9y ago
    This is for prosecution. The removal of such speech is a civil suit. Facebook/Twitter might have taken a post more serious when the police came and asked questions, but then, they might not. And prosecution might not what a victim was after, as this involved being part of a legal case where your stance is weaker than that of the claimed perpetrator (as it is a penal case then).
  - Tomte 9y ago
    And that never went anywhere, because Facebook disobeyed even court orders. They never replied to judges. They never took down posts a court had ordered them to. The NetzDG is bad law, and will probably be repealed before the Constitution Court rules it unconstitutional. But it was a reaction to social networks disobeying the law. An overreaction, yes, but a reaction. I wish it were more commonly known in libertarian and net freedom circles that the pendulum swings both ways. After excesses in one direction it will swing far into the other direction. Maybe keep that in mind when pursuing extreme goals at any cost, instead of find8ng a middle way that works for everyone. I think the NetzDG is crap and won‘t stay for long. But I also think that Facebook and Twitter deserve all this pain.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Well, sure, but it didn't go nowhere because a clear procedure for reporting didn't exist, but because the law was not enforced and maybe because some pieces necessary for successful enforcement were missing (which the NetzDG adds, in addition to all the crap that privatizes the law enforcement). Really, I don't see many people in "net freedom circles" who object to forcing Facebook to delete illegal posts. The objection is rather to (a) deleting stuff instead of prosecuting the perpetrators, (b) hiding (censoring) stuff that's still there, and (c) making parties other than the judicial system responsible for limiting speech. But, yeah, sure, I don't care about Facebook or Twitter either.

by hh3k0 9y ago

scrollaway 9y ago

How big are the fines? When companies left and right write off fines as business expenses, what makes those different?

Tomte 9y ago
Up to 50 million Euros for repeated offenses.

yorwba 9y ago

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines for failing to delete obviously illegal content and none for just deleting everything that is reported and not obviously legal. The law makes provisions for handing over tricky cases to an external agency, but expected the companies to jointly set it up themselves ("regulated self-regulation"), which they didn't do; likely because the people checking reports at such an agency are legally mandated to be competent. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
But there always was a very clear procedure for reporting illegal content: You visit your local police station and tell them.
- hwh 9y ago
  This is for prosecution. The removal of such speech is a civil suit. Facebook/Twitter might have taken a post more serious when the police came and asked questions, but then, they might not. And prosecution might not what a victim was after, as this involved being part of a legal case where your stance is weaker than that of the claimed perpetrator (as it is a penal case then).
- Tomte 9y ago
  And that never went anywhere, because Facebook disobeyed even court orders. They never replied to judges. They never took down posts a court had ordered them to. The NetzDG is bad law, and will probably be repealed before the Constitution Court rules it unconstitutional. But it was a reaction to social networks disobeying the law. An overreaction, yes, but a reaction. I wish it were more commonly known in libertarian and net freedom circles that the pendulum swings both ways. After excesses in one direction it will swing far into the other direction. Maybe keep that in mind when pursuing extreme goals at any cost, instead of find8ng a middle way that works for everyone. I think the NetzDG is crap and won‘t stay for long. But I also think that Facebook and Twitter deserve all this pain.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Well, sure, but it didn't go nowhere because a clear procedure for reporting didn't exist, but because the law was not enforced and maybe because some pieces necessary for successful enforcement were missing (which the NetzDG adds, in addition to all the crap that privatizes the law enforcement). Really, I don't see many people in "net freedom circles" who object to forcing Facebook to delete illegal posts. The objection is rather to (a) deleting stuff instead of prosecuting the perpetrators, (b) hiding (censoring) stuff that's still there, and (c) making parties other than the judicial system responsible for limiting speech. But, yeah, sure, I don't care about Facebook or Twitter either.