4 ms·

I don't like how the liability for finding hate speech is being shifted from law enforcement to private companies. If you want to make laws restricting what peo

I don't like how the liability for finding hate speech is being shifted from law enforcement to private companies. If you want to make laws restricting what people can say, social media companies shouldn't be the ones enforcing it, law enforcement should be. Pass a law requiring all content flagged by the police to be removed, don't pass a law requiring social media companies to act as the police, with millions of dollars in fines if their rulings don't line up with law enforcement.

RegnisGnaw 6y ago
Because that decision is a win-win-win politically. It avoids the high cost of additional government/police. It panders to the fares of some of the population on hate speech/kids. It also shows that government is in control.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Yeah the dumb practice seems rather feudalistic effectively in trying to dragoon "guilds" of entities they can deal with in domains with raised barriers to entry for the sake of their ease of administration and grip on power. One of the few good things to say is that Germany's case doesn't seem to be an attempt to try to bypass its own internal restrictions at least. But that bar should be so low that it is buried.
pnako 6y ago
A similar new anti hate speech law has just been invalidated in France by the constitutional council (supreme court). The wise men indeed recognized that judging whether or not content is illegal and thus censored should be left to judges, not private companies. I would not be surprised if the German law ends up with the same fate.
zimpenfish 6y ago
> Pass a law requiring all content flagged by the police to be removed The private companies have an advantage, though, in that they can apply automated filtering, machine learning, what have you, as content is uploaded - when you're getting 500 hours of content[1] or 350,000 tweets[2] uploaded per minute, there is zero possibility that law enforcement can monitor and flag that effectively. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up... [2] https://www.dsayce.com/social-media/tweets-day/ https://www.dsayce.com/social-media/tweets-day/

RegnisGnaw 6y ago

Because that decision is a win-win-win politically. It avoids the high cost of additional government/police. It panders to the fares of some of the population on hate speech/kids. It also shows that government is in control.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Yeah the dumb practice seems rather feudalistic effectively in trying to dragoon "guilds" of entities they can deal with in domains with raised barriers to entry for the sake of their ease of administration and grip on power. One of the few good things to say is that Germany's case doesn't seem to be an attempt to try to bypass its own internal restrictions at least. But that bar should be so low that it is buried.

pnako 6y ago

A similar new anti hate speech law has just been invalidated in France by the constitutional council (supreme court). The wise men indeed recognized that judging whether or not content is illegal and thus censored should be left to judges, not private companies. I would not be surprised if the German law ends up with the same fate.

zimpenfish 6y ago

> Pass a law requiring all content flagged by the police to be removed The private companies have an advantage, though, in that they can apply automated filtering, machine learning, what have you, as content is uploaded - when you're getting 500 hours of content[1] or 350,000 tweets[2] uploaded per minute, there is zero possibility that law enforcement can monitor and flag that effectively. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up... [2] https://www.dsayce.com/social-media/tweets-day/ https://www.dsayce.com/social-media/tweets-day/