11 ms·

> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is

• offby37years 6y ago
  There is a distinction between website and the quoted "social media services".
  • thebouv 6y ago
    Really? Define it then. Facebook is a website by all technical terms. Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website? What is a website that hosts a forum? What is Discord? What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin? What about comments on my blog articles?
    • scotty79 6y ago
      You could discriminate by just listing names of the platforms that this law is intended for or go by number of (polish?) users.
    • ben_w 6y ago
      A while ago, I got a lot of flack here for suggesting that github wasn’t a social media website.
    • zettadam 6y ago
      Technically Facebook/Twitter are not websites, but "social" applications (web/native). You need to have a user account to see (FB) or post (FB/Twitter) anything.
      • alsetmusic 6y ago
        I need a user account to watch Netflix. Same for banking. A user account is not the primary criteria of being a "social" application.
    • amadeuspagel 6y ago
      Where is the distinction between a company town and my living room? Define it.
    • alsetmusic 6y ago
      Ben Thompson, of Stratechery, had an interesting way of talking about Facebook that might help with a future definition of "social media services." He (and podcast co-host John Gruber[0]) talked about the idea that Facebook isn't the same site for any two people. Due to the algo, everyone has their own personal version of the site. Therefore, there's no individual snapshot of Facebook at any given time. I found this an interesting concept to point out. If one needed to distinguish between a website and "social media services," perhaps a law could be drafted such that such a condition was true. HN, for example, would be a website because commenting and voting is user-based. I suppose that might mean Spotify and Netflix would be swallowed by the definition. The definition would then need additional language about user-submitted content. [0]: https://dithering.fm https://dithering.fm
      • nradov 6y ago
        Amazon.com isn't the same site for any two people. It shows you different product suggestions based on what you purchased or looked at before.
    • numpad0 6y ago
      Websites that host user generated content are social media. HN is a social media, your basement server isn’t, hosted content on AWS probably needs some definition workarounds but instinctively shouldn’t be.
      • jeena 6y ago
        What about my PeerTube instance hosted on a NUC in my kitchen? It hosts copies of videos and comments from other instances.
        • numpad0 6y ago
          Boom you're a social media company. And you'll be naturally liable for hosting contents. Isn't that how Winny worked?
  • isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago
    There is not even a draft of this law available, so you can't be sure.
  • franklampard 6y ago
    Is HN a social media service?
  • perardi 6y ago
    Really? What if I have a blog with comments? That is a website that involves social interaction. If I remove a comment on there, that is “removing content”.
• kennywinker 6y ago
  Yup, under this law a post mentioning true facts about nazi collaboration in poland during ww2 would be illegal.
  • d3ckard 6y ago
    Out of curiosity, which facts do you mean? The law is stupid of course and an attempt to fight for their point of view(that is: xenophobic, racist and intolerant), but history is a subject rather widely discussed in Poland with all the sides being represented in media.
    • kennywinker 6y ago
      https://time.com/5128341/poland-holocaust-law/ https://time.com/5128341/poland-holocaust-law/ > The bill was proposed by the country’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) and calls for up to three years in prison or a fine for accusing the Polish state or people of involvement or responsibility for the Nazi occupation during World War II The law has since passed, tho it was later amended to remove the prison time portion. Now I am not a lawyer, nor am I polish, so I don't know what the situation is on the ground - but I believe the law makes repeating much of the contents of this wikipedia page illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_in_German-occupi...
      • zozbot234 6y ago
        No one sensible is accusing "the Polish state" or "the Polish people" of being involved with the Holocaust, and the Wikipedia page itself doesn't state anything like that. The law is aimed at hateful idiocy like talking about the supposed "Polish death camps", as opposed to the tragically real Nazi death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.
        • kennywinker 6y ago
          The wikipedia page I linked to clearly points out that polish people WERE involved in the holocaust. Not all, in fact I believe the vast majority of poles were not collaborators... but that doesn't mean this law doesn't make it legally sketchy to talk about the poles who were collaborators
• kevin_b_er 6y ago
  This is the true point of it. Anything they don't like is banned, anything they like is compelled.
• formerly_proven 6y ago
  Like they sing in Poland, Jebać PiS. Note that PiS is actually pronounced piss, which must be some kind of divine providence.
  • disabled 6y ago
    Hahaha, a lot of people who are Slavs or of Slavic descent know exactly what you mean, universally. The first word is known well across Slavic languages, the second is an acronym for Poland’s far right ruling party.
  • jwieczorek 6y ago
    This isn't Reddit.
  • redka 6y ago
    > PiS is actually pronounced piss no it isn't. It's pronounced peace
  • rasz 6y ago
    Actual protest from the end of 2020 when PIS decided to just break established multi party agreements and outlaw abortions: https://www.reddit.com/r/ericprydz/comments/jkzj5a/antigovernment_protest_in_poland_to_the_beat_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ericprydz/comments/jkzj5a/antigover... how it happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygAMU7HOM7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygAMU7HOM7I
• duskwuff 6y ago
  > This is kind of insane. It's especially insane because Polish law is not a superset of every other country's law. If a web site is forced to remove content because it violates a law specific to the country the site is based in -- boom, now they've broken the law in Poland.
  • onepointsixC 6y ago
    You're right, there's no way this could reasonably enforced.
    • jolmg 6y ago
      Enforced it could be. No way to reasonably comply, though.
  • _Microft 6y ago
    Nitpicking: you would want it to be a subset of the laws of all other countries‘ for that as it needs to be the intersection of all to be compatible with all of them at once.
  • Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
    Social media is heavily balkanized along language borders.
• hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Put another way: In the US at least, r/jailbait didn't actually break any laws (well, maybe some individual posts did, but the whole idea of that subreddit was essentially to ogle underage women/children but in a way that was not explicitly illegal). So with something like this law all social media sites would be forced to host the equivalent of r/jailbait.
  • root_axis 6y ago
    Actually, r/jailbait was removed as a reaction to the FOSTA laws which explicitly carve out an exception to section 230 for content that could be considered related to sex trafficking, so in this sense it actually did create a new legal risk compared to other non-sex related subs.
    • afuchs 6y ago
      I thought that subreddit was banned because of the negative media attention that it received. Wasn't that years before SESTA and FOSTA were passed?
      • nitwit005 6y ago
        Yes, the timing matched with the negative media attention, similar to the removals of a few Trump subreddits recently.
        • notadev 6y ago
          This has already been weaponized by subs like /r/AgainstHateSubs and other vigilante-like subs. Their tactics usually involve posting in those subreddits from sockpuppet accounts, using hateful or threatening messages. The few times the targeted subs mods aren't on the ball, they mass report the post for hate speech to try and get the sub banned, or the mods banned then later request the subreddit for themselves, something of a trophy I guess. On rare instances, they reach out to their freelance journalist friends to write a hite piece.
• jdanp 6y ago
  The second part is reminiscent of how “net neutrality” is pitched in the United States. I’ve never felt that definition was true net neutrality due to the reason you outlined.
• mirekrusin 6y ago
  But to determine if something is legal or illegal sometimes takes years, doesn't it?
• protonimitate 6y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, and at the risk of sounding ignorant, but I don't understand how a Polish law can be enforced on a company/service/piece of hardware under US (presumably, but could be any other) jurisdiction. At the end of the day, the data is sitting on a piece of hardware somewhere, isn't the "owning" place the one that dictates what laws can be enforced on it?
  • CalRobert 6y ago
    Who mentioned the US?
    • protonimitate 6y ago
      No one. > (presumably, but could be any other)
  • anonunivgrad 6y ago
    If you want to do business in a country, then you have to follow the laws of that country. Polish courts would enter judgment against the company for violating Polish law, premising their jurisdiction on the activities of that company within their borders (e.g. accepting payment in polish currency, selling ads to polish businesses, charging for polish views/clicks). They can then seize the company's property in Poland to enforce that judgment. They can also introduce that judgment in foreign courts to do enforcement actions there. Those foreign courts would examine the validity of the Polish judgment (e.g. by reexamining jurisdiction) before issuing orders to enforce it. There's nothing novel about this. This is how civil judgments are enforced across borders every day.
    • protonimitate 6y ago
      Makes sense, thanks.
  • paxys 6y ago
    It can be enforced in a lot of ways, including fines on the company's operations in the country, charges against local employees and banning the site from the country's ISPs.
• DataSceince123 6y ago
  facebook can simply pull out of the nation
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• b0rsuk 6y ago
  Oh, but Zbigniew Ziobro (the minister) IS kinda insane in other aspects. He's a hardcore conservative. His childhood/teenage hero was Janosik, a highlander bandit along the lines of Robin Hood. Being a fan of vigilante justice is not a good sign if you're a minister of justice. He's bothered by independent courts and independent prosecutors. He puts pressure on judges ruling not along his will, he harasses them, stripped one of immunity for investigating a break of parliamentary statute. If you do something he doesn't like, he might relocate or harass you under a pretext. Make an example out of you. His actions are clearly aimed to produce a chilling effect. But priests accused of pedophilia get silent protection, including getting a peek into court documents. He also likes to micromanage court cases, especially in flashy cases where it's easy to get an emotional reaction from people, such as accusions of rape, pedophilia (except by priests), murder. He gets in bed with Ordo Iuris, a para-legal branch of the Brazilian catholic sect TFP, condemned by bishops in Brazil in the 80's. They are absolutely against abortion and openly seek goals like forbidding divorce. He's a mediocre lawyer. He objects to the idea that European Union cares about law-abidingness and asked the consitutional court to check if the idea is compatible with constitution. Political goals and "good of the nation" are more important to him. He's a paranoid, petty and vindictive person. Also, very power hungry. > does not break Polish law The ruling party intentionally creates ambiguous law that can be applied in an arbitrary manner. Be on the party's good side. Current Polish government is a lite version of authoritarianism, and getting more so over time. It doesn't control all aspects of life like a totalitarian party would, yet. But it's trying, for example religion, against sexuality(including basic sexual education), edits history textbooks, paints new people as heroes and erases old ones. Doctors and experts don't have much to say in matters of the pandemic. One party official openly stated they have no use for experts because they refuse to implement the party policy. Don't miss the fact no ruling party member congratulated Joe Bidden on winning the election. The closest they got was congratulating him on a "good campaign", echoing the statements of those like Vladimir Putin. They are very much fans of Donald Trump. NATO's new focus on "defense of democracy", EU's attention to law-abidingneness, Biden's ostensible emphasis on values and democracy are all dark clouds for the Polish ruling party. The bottom line: for the pro-West, pro-EU Poles, Ziobro is an awful person.
  • daemin 6y ago
• alsetmusic 6y ago
  This would be a nightmare for anyone trying to host a family-friendly forum. “Hey, no pornography!” “What are you gonna do about it?” Completely reactionary and fails to consider practicality.
  • viraptor 6y ago
    Don't put it past Polish law and order to rule pornography illegal soon. (And contraception probably sooner) I wouldn't be surprised at attempts - they're quite conservative.
    • daemin 6y ago
      You already need to go see a doctor and get a prescription for anything contraception related, and they can decide not to give it to you. This includes "the pill" as well as "the morning after pill". Also the recent rulings on Abortion almost caused a revolution. So they might be more careful in the coming months.
• russli1993 6y ago
  We can extend your point. A website used by kids may not want swear words, a website may not want sexists, racists, and another hate speech. In certain situations, disallowing content is the site owner's way of expressing their point of the view. This law bans this site owner from doing so. It limits site owner's ability to express their views on what their own property should be. By the way, we should also keep in mind that a site is the private property of an entity, just like an object or a piece of land. If this law is enacted, when a site owner sees speech on their own site that goes against their values, they can only condemn them with words, but the actual act will still happen on their property.
• jpambrun 6y ago
  This status quo is US companies gets to decide wait is fair speech. Obviously this is untenable for all other nations as it should be in the US as well.
• 1MachineElf 6y ago
  >So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like You will have to put more limits up front to control what content gets uploaded.
• shripadk 6y ago
  Well all this wouldn't have been possible if not for the precedent Big Tech set in handling opposing ideologies. Now why cry over balkanization of the internet when that is what was pushed for by the leftists in these Big Tech companies? What do you think would happen if Big Tech kept censoring something it did not like? You would obviously have a reaction to it. I view the Polish laws as a reaction to the ridiculous ideological censorship stance taken by the Big Tech. First polarize the population, then cry why opposing laws are being framed that shatters your idea of what internet should be. I won't be surprised if many other countries follow the same path. Those who experienced censorship know it first hand what it's like. Looking at you being shocked at this legislation just shows how wide the split is. That one bubble is completely oblivious to what the other bubble is experiencing.
• bsradcliffe 6y ago
  Ah, Poland. The next 1930s Germany.
  • bsradcliffe 6y ago
    I say this to reinforce what OP points out. If the government disagrees with something, they can now simply rewrite a law to enable their censorship. That is scary, given they don't have a definitive law protecting people from government censorship.
• brokenkebab 6y ago
  I don't think all legal nuances are visible in one sentence resume probably hastily translated from Polish, but in any case there's nothing unusual about it. Many countries already have anti-discrimination laws which can seriously limit what you can do with your private property when it's open for public interaction. I'm sure they will use it as a blueprint.
• raxxorrax 6y ago
  It is equally insane to say forbid hate speech as is can be interpreted as anything. Likewise, I assume they want to keep social media from deleting anything not aligned to the current zeitgeist. The real problem are still people that want content removed that mostly doesn't even concern them in the first place. But you are correct, a literal usage of this law is insane.