3 ms·

> as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government To elaborate

> as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government To elaborate on the other user, Germany and France both ban holocaust denial and "hate speech", which would include much of the content on Parler. Mexico's speech laws are less clear, but if my reading is correct the constitution allows regulation of hate speech. And in practice, speech in Mexico isn't protected from the government or cartels. So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. This would, of course, require a constitutional amendment, at which point anything goes. Excluding that, what you see (and will continue to see) is corporations stepping in to ban hate speech because the government is restricted from doing so.

chrchang523 6y ago
Did you actually read what Merkel or AMLO said? The first sentence of your second paragraph ("So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech.") can be immediately verified to be false in the sense that you are stating it (as justification for the platforms' behavior).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said social media companies "bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence." > He said it's right not to "stand back" when such content is posted, for example by flagging it, but qualified that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of "elementary significance." > Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany’s example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to $60.8 million in fines. [0] You mean verified to be correct as confirmed by her spokesperson who released the initial statement. (Seibert released the initial statement, as can be seen here[1]) So yes, the statement can be seen as saying two things 1. Twitter is too powerful and needs to be regulated 2. The US needs stronger regulations on hate speech. [0]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters-problematic-trump-ban https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters... [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-twitter-over-problematic-trump-ban.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...
  - mcguire 6y ago
    From [0]: "Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany’s example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to $60.8 million in fines. ""This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms," he told reporters in Berlin. "Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.""
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I don't think this contradicts what I've said. One can conclude from this statement both that Merkel believes Twitter needs to be regulated, and that the US needs stronger speech regulation in general. (also I'll note that what Twitter did isn't actually illegal in Germany, there's no law that compels social media companies to host people)
      - chrchang523 6y ago
        It directly contradicts your use of the statement as justification for the platforms' behavior.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I haven't used the word "justification" so i'm not clear what you're talking about. My statement was > So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. Which was, and continues to be, supported by Merkel's statement.
        chrchang523 6y ago
        The primary message from all of these governments is that the platforms are out of line. Your original comment was in support of/elaborating on "It would be governmental overreach [to set the rules]." That original comment had an overly permissive rule in place of what I've bracketed, but that's beside the point since all of these governments are specifically objecting that the recent actions are problematically restrictive.

chrchang523 6y ago

Did you actually read what Merkel or AMLO said? The first sentence of your second paragraph ("So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech.") can be immediately verified to be false in the sense that you are stating it (as justification for the platforms' behavior).

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said social media companies "bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence." > He said it's right not to "stand back" when such content is posted, for example by flagging it, but qualified that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of "elementary significance." > Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany’s example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to $60.8 million in fines. [0] You mean verified to be correct as confirmed by her spokesperson who released the initial statement. (Seibert released the initial statement, as can be seen here[1]) So yes, the statement can be seen as saying two things 1. Twitter is too powerful and needs to be regulated 2. The US needs stronger regulations on hate speech. [0]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters-problematic-trump-ban https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters... [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-twitter-over-problematic-trump-ban.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...
- mcguire 6y ago
  From [0]: "Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany’s example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to $60.8 million in fines. ""This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms," he told reporters in Berlin. "Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.""
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I don't think this contradicts what I've said. One can conclude from this statement both that Merkel believes Twitter needs to be regulated, and that the US needs stronger speech regulation in general. (also I'll note that what Twitter did isn't actually illegal in Germany, there's no law that compels social media companies to host people)
    - chrchang523 6y ago
      It directly contradicts your use of the statement as justification for the platforms' behavior.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I haven't used the word "justification" so i'm not clear what you're talking about. My statement was > So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. Which was, and continues to be, supported by Merkel's statement.
        chrchang523 6y ago
        The primary message from all of these governments is that the platforms are out of line. Your original comment was in support of/elaborating on "It would be governmental overreach [to set the rules]." That original comment had an overly permissive rule in place of what I've bracketed, but that's beside the point since all of these governments are specifically objecting that the recent actions are problematically restrictive.