6 ms·

>It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms Just because your Facebook post is deleted does not mean your constitional right to free speech is

>It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms Just because your Facebook post is deleted does not mean your constitional right to free speech is limited.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Correct. Which is why you might want to read the full context of this discussion, which should then tell you that this is not about "Facebook just deleting a post", but about the state systematically incentivising Facebook to act in such a way that if the state itself acted in that way, that would obviously be a violation of your constitutional freedoms. Indirect action through a private entity does not make otherwise unconstitutional things constitutional.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  You know Germany doesn't govern itself according to the US constitution, yes?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    You know that the word "constitution" is not reserved for the US constitution, yes?
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      You certainly seem to be trying to apply the standards of the US constitution to german law. I think you should be more specific if you wish to be clearly understood.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        How do I seem like that when I am talking about "the constitution" in the context of German law? Maybe I should also mention that I am talking about the German NetzDG, not the US NetzDG?
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        Because most people write on HN in English and most HN users are American. I'm not, as it happens; but I don't know what constitutional freedoms you take for granted in Germany, as I'm not so familiar with your country's constitution, and it wasn't entirely obvious at first that you're German. The German Constitution is pretty long so it'd be really helpful if you could perhaps cite specific articles to provide some context for your assertions.
- emn13 9y ago
  I don't think it's constructive to look at this in such a black and white fashion. Limiting speech is permitted and performed for good reason on a vast scale. Yes, there are similarly for good reasons limitations! Nobody has articulated that this restriction is harmful; nor protected; and certainly not why. By contrast, the harms of the messages limited thusly are rather more clear. Furthermore, you're trying to draw some really broad analogy, and find that facebook is the government and thus that constitutional protections apply to enforcement by facebook. I mean... that's murky at best - and note that even if this were direct government censureship it's not even clear this would be a bad idea or whether the hypothetical governmental corolloray would be constitutionally prohibited (which is particularly unclear since nobody knows exactly what that might be). Facebook is excercising disgression in which content to publish to whom, and when. They also happen to make a lot of money like that. So regardless of the original authors rights; it's not at all clear that facebook should be immune from prosecution for publishing prohibited content. In a sense, this new law is still letting them off unreasonably lightly. I think we as societies still need to figure out what the heck the age of data science means for free speech. I don't think being all fundamentalist about that is going to help, in any case.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Nobody has articulated that this restriction is harmful; nor protected; and certainly not why. By contrast, the harms of the messages limited thusly are rather more clear. The very first comment in this thread: "A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit" Yes, there are limits to the freedom of speech (and technically, there is not even freedom of speech in the German constitution, but rather freedom to express one's opinions). But satire is generally very firmly within the bounds of protected speech, the constitutional court has had to deal with such cases many times, and it has found over and over and over, some of the cases involving just the satirical magazine referred to above, that satire is almost always within the bounds of where the state may not interfere with the freedom to speak. The constitutional court has explained at length the importance of satire and controversial art for political discourse. So, no, the harm of the messages limited is not clear at all. > Furthermore, you're trying to draw some really broad analogy, and find that facebook is the government and thus that constitutional protections apply to enforcement by facebook. No, nothing like that. Facebook is not bound by the constitution. The constitution only binds the state. Facebook may delete satire as much as they like. But the state may not incentivize Facebook to delete satire, because the state is bound by the constitution, and the state is forbidden from restricting satirical speech (for example), and by extension from making other parties restrict satirical speech. It's not Facebook's actions that go against the constitution, it's the state's actions that incentivize Facebook that go against the constitution. > and note that even if this were direct government censureship it's not even clear this would be a bad idea or whether the hypothetical governmental corolloray would be constitutionally prohibited (which is particularly unclear since nobody knows exactly what that might be). Well, except that it is. The constitutional court has dealt with that. Restricting satirical speech is an almost total no-go for the German state, the constitutional court will not have that. > Facebook is excercising disgression in which content to publish to whom, and when. That's indeed a good point, though on the other hand, they probably will say that they try to act as agents finding useful information for their respective users rather than as publishers selecting what they consider interesting. That's also a lie, of course, but still with some truth to it. Really, what they are doing doesn't really fit directly any traditional roles. > So regardless of the original authors rights; But you cannot disregard the constitutional rights of the authors because you want to achieve some other goal, that's the point of constitutional rights. > I think we as societies still need to figure out what the heck the age of data science means for free speech. Well, yeah, I guess society still needs to figure it out, but the answer really isn't that difficult: Communication needs to be freed of surveillance/advertisement needs to be separated from communication. Probably not really possible, but this fusion of communication technology with advertisement/marketing/manipulation technology is a huge problem and ultimately at the heart of all of this. The need to get people to pay attention to their advertisers corrupts all other actions of Facebook, Twitter, and the whole bunch.
StreamBright 9y ago
It also does not mean that the issue is fixed.
coldtea 9y ago
No, it just means that the "constitutional right to free speech" is limited and antiquated, and the modern means of speech, in the modern places where people gather to hear one another (social media), are censored without problem...

>It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms Just because your Facebook post is deleted does not mean your constitional right to free speech is limited.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

Correct. Which is why you might want to read the full context of this discussion, which should then tell you that this is not about "Facebook just deleting a post", but about the state systematically incentivising Facebook to act in such a way that if the state itself acted in that way, that would obviously be a violation of your constitutional freedoms. Indirect action through a private entity does not make otherwise unconstitutional things constitutional.

anigbrowl 9y ago
You know Germany doesn't govern itself according to the US constitution, yes?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  You know that the word "constitution" is not reserved for the US constitution, yes?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    You certainly seem to be trying to apply the standards of the US constitution to german law. I think you should be more specific if you wish to be clearly understood.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      How do I seem like that when I am talking about "the constitution" in the context of German law? Maybe I should also mention that I am talking about the German NetzDG, not the US NetzDG?
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Because most people write on HN in English and most HN users are American. I'm not, as it happens; but I don't know what constitutional freedoms you take for granted in Germany, as I'm not so familiar with your country's constitution, and it wasn't entirely obvious at first that you're German. The German Constitution is pretty long so it'd be really helpful if you could perhaps cite specific articles to provide some context for your assertions.
emn13 9y ago
I don't think it's constructive to look at this in such a black and white fashion. Limiting speech is permitted and performed for good reason on a vast scale. Yes, there are similarly for good reasons limitations! Nobody has articulated that this restriction is harmful; nor protected; and certainly not why. By contrast, the harms of the messages limited thusly are rather more clear. Furthermore, you're trying to draw some really broad analogy, and find that facebook is the government and thus that constitutional protections apply to enforcement by facebook. I mean... that's murky at best - and note that even if this were direct government censureship it's not even clear this would be a bad idea or whether the hypothetical governmental corolloray would be constitutionally prohibited (which is particularly unclear since nobody knows exactly what that might be). Facebook is excercising disgression in which content to publish to whom, and when. They also happen to make a lot of money like that. So regardless of the original authors rights; it's not at all clear that facebook should be immune from prosecution for publishing prohibited content. In a sense, this new law is still letting them off unreasonably lightly. I think we as societies still need to figure out what the heck the age of data science means for free speech. I don't think being all fundamentalist about that is going to help, in any case.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Nobody has articulated that this restriction is harmful; nor protected; and certainly not why. By contrast, the harms of the messages limited thusly are rather more clear. The very first comment in this thread: "A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit" Yes, there are limits to the freedom of speech (and technically, there is not even freedom of speech in the German constitution, but rather freedom to express one's opinions). But satire is generally very firmly within the bounds of protected speech, the constitutional court has had to deal with such cases many times, and it has found over and over and over, some of the cases involving just the satirical magazine referred to above, that satire is almost always within the bounds of where the state may not interfere with the freedom to speak. The constitutional court has explained at length the importance of satire and controversial art for political discourse. So, no, the harm of the messages limited is not clear at all. > Furthermore, you're trying to draw some really broad analogy, and find that facebook is the government and thus that constitutional protections apply to enforcement by facebook. No, nothing like that. Facebook is not bound by the constitution. The constitution only binds the state. Facebook may delete satire as much as they like. But the state may not incentivize Facebook to delete satire, because the state is bound by the constitution, and the state is forbidden from restricting satirical speech (for example), and by extension from making other parties restrict satirical speech. It's not Facebook's actions that go against the constitution, it's the state's actions that incentivize Facebook that go against the constitution. > and note that even if this were direct government censureship it's not even clear this would be a bad idea or whether the hypothetical governmental corolloray would be constitutionally prohibited (which is particularly unclear since nobody knows exactly what that might be). Well, except that it is. The constitutional court has dealt with that. Restricting satirical speech is an almost total no-go for the German state, the constitutional court will not have that. > Facebook is excercising disgression in which content to publish to whom, and when. That's indeed a good point, though on the other hand, they probably will say that they try to act as agents finding useful information for their respective users rather than as publishers selecting what they consider interesting. That's also a lie, of course, but still with some truth to it. Really, what they are doing doesn't really fit directly any traditional roles. > So regardless of the original authors rights; But you cannot disregard the constitutional rights of the authors because you want to achieve some other goal, that's the point of constitutional rights. > I think we as societies still need to figure out what the heck the age of data science means for free speech. Well, yeah, I guess society still needs to figure it out, but the answer really isn't that difficult: Communication needs to be freed of surveillance/advertisement needs to be separated from communication. Probably not really possible, but this fusion of communication technology with advertisement/marketing/manipulation technology is a huge problem and ultimately at the heart of all of this. The need to get people to pay attention to their advertisers corrupts all other actions of Facebook, Twitter, and the whole bunch.

StreamBright 9y ago

It also does not mean that the issue is fixed.

coldtea 9y ago

No, it just means that the "constitutional right to free speech" is limited and antiquated, and the modern means of speech, in the modern places where people gather to hear one another (social media), are censored without problem...