11 ms·

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rap

by corty 6y ago

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rapidly delete content that might be against some law. Not after a court decision or at least an official order, no no, nothing so formal. A user complaint is sufficient to trigger the need to check within a few hours, have the platform decide to delete and report. No due process, nothing. Penalties for insufficient reaction by the platform are steep and of course set after the fact. Therefore platforms will err on the side of caution and delete far more than they would have to. And people like Merkel who are responsible for that law have the gall to complain when something their censorship law stipulated is done to a fellow politician... https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-germany-twitter/germany-has-reservations-about-trump-twitter-ban-merkel-spokesman-says-idUSL8N2JM4ES https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-germany-twitter/ge...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
echelon 6y ago
100%. Germany is so wrong about this, and this is not the way we should go. We Americans needs to grow thicker skin and cherish our free speech more. If we don't, we're going to slip into a world with less liberty. Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. Seeing or hearing people say things you don't like isn't going to kill you. Society already has the tools to shun those who act egregiously. We have other legal mechanisms to quell the events that happened last week. Prosecute for politicians inciting violence, fine trusted news organizations spreading misinformation, jail those who destroy property, trespass, or assault another person. We have ways to stop radicalization too: being better to one another and making sure people have their needs met. I vehemently disagree with Voat, Parler, thedonald.win, /r/sino, J. K. Rowling, and many other communities and persons. But they have a right to carry on, and we shouldn't deplatform them. If we didn't have free speech, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today. I'd rather live in America than a country that has less free speech.
- shripadk 6y ago
  That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et all because of the powerful grasp they have over digital communications and media. The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. Why would any Government trust American Government's word if a Private Company can undo it or act unilaterally without Congress approval? What does it convey to the World leaders? Is there 1 power center in America or 2? We used to mock Pakistan for having dual power centers (the elected Government and the military since their military doesn't come under the control of the elected Government). It caused a lot of confusion for World powers to interact with Pakistan as no one knew who the controller was. Was it the elected Government or the military? I'm seeing the same thing happening in America. Why should my Government take US Government seriously if a private company can ban/censor US Government communications? Deleting a sitting US President's account is not going to be respected by any Government. Period.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    > America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. My answer to that is you and your friends have talked up sedition for so long that you've normalized it. And can't wrap your head around the thought that it's actually criminal and always has been. You've gotten away with that because up until now the government hasn't really cared. Take a note, after Jan 6th they now care.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      I'm not an American. So what sedition are you talking about? I won't comment on the rest of your stupid statement as you haven't even understood what I was saying. Maybe learn to read the entire comment before you give your 2 cents. --- Editing because rate limited > Not being an American perhaps you should be even more concerned about what you say. This just doesn't change the US Governments view what what you've been up to, your government also will be taking a very dim view. Are you for real? I don't give a fuck as to what US Government thinks of me. I don't give a fuck to what my Government thinks of me. I have a clear view of what has transpired and I know the repercussions this will have on internet and our freedoms. No one can take that right of opinion away from me. Not you, not the American Government, not my Government. Neither have I been involved in any seditious activities nor will I ever be. It just goes to show how anti-free speech America has become these days. It shows in your replies to me that you can't even tolerate an opposing viewpoint without insinuations and veiled threats.
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  For me the challenge becomes "which government?" Should 200 different national governments be able to decide how the platform is run in their country? Should different sub-regions be able to decide? Makes me wonder what global governance would look like for this or even platform-specific governance could be. Maybe there's a play for users of specific platforms to unite and demand more representation over how a platform is governed, as workers united for more representation in companies.
- silexia 6y ago
  Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obnoxious patrons or comics. They can always go somewhere else. The same principle applies online, only it is much easier for someone who is not welcome in one community to go somewhere else or start their own. Never give the government control over what is acceptable speech, let each business cater to the crowd they want.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 6y ago
    Ah yes, let’s just let open Holocaust-denial or Hitler-worshipping or white supremacy all be absolutely fine. Or what about doxxing or a focused effort to destroy a business online through lies and slander, on a social network that doesn’t have any rules? Is that allowed? It’s my free speech to tell lies of course. Free speech without restrictions is a silly liberal dream that never works. It’s like capitalism in that it holds it own downfall within its internal logic.
zaarn 6y ago
There is a due process if the creator of whatever was complained about decides to do something about it. Additionally, this is only a flagging process for plainly illegal content, it can (and is on FB and other platforms) be a separate process from normal reports.

by corty 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

echelon 6y ago

100%. Germany is so wrong about this, and this is not the way we should go. We Americans needs to grow thicker skin and cherish our free speech more. If we don't, we're going to slip into a world with less liberty. Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. Seeing or hearing people say things you don't like isn't going to kill you. Society already has the tools to shun those who act egregiously. We have other legal mechanisms to quell the events that happened last week. Prosecute for politicians inciting violence, fine trusted news organizations spreading misinformation, jail those who destroy property, trespass, or assault another person. We have ways to stop radicalization too: being better to one another and making sure people have their needs met. I vehemently disagree with Voat, Parler, thedonald.win, /r/sino, J. K. Rowling, and many other communities and persons. But they have a right to carry on, and we shouldn't deplatform them. If we didn't have free speech, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today. I'd rather live in America than a country that has less free speech.

shripadk 6y ago
That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et all because of the powerful grasp they have over digital communications and media. The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. Why would any Government trust American Government's word if a Private Company can undo it or act unilaterally without Congress approval? What does it convey to the World leaders? Is there 1 power center in America or 2? We used to mock Pakistan for having dual power centers (the elected Government and the military since their military doesn't come under the control of the elected Government). It caused a lot of confusion for World powers to interact with Pakistan as no one knew who the controller was. Was it the elected Government or the military? I'm seeing the same thing happening in America. Why should my Government take US Government seriously if a private company can ban/censor US Government communications? Deleting a sitting US President's account is not going to be respected by any Government. Period.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  > America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. My answer to that is you and your friends have talked up sedition for so long that you've normalized it. And can't wrap your head around the thought that it's actually criminal and always has been. You've gotten away with that because up until now the government hasn't really cared. Take a note, after Jan 6th they now care.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    I'm not an American. So what sedition are you talking about? I won't comment on the rest of your stupid statement as you haven't even understood what I was saying. Maybe learn to read the entire comment before you give your 2 cents. --- Editing because rate limited > Not being an American perhaps you should be even more concerned about what you say. This just doesn't change the US Governments view what what you've been up to, your government also will be taking a very dim view. Are you for real? I don't give a fuck as to what US Government thinks of me. I don't give a fuck to what my Government thinks of me. I have a clear view of what has transpired and I know the repercussions this will have on internet and our freedoms. No one can take that right of opinion away from me. Not you, not the American Government, not my Government. Neither have I been involved in any seditious activities nor will I ever be. It just goes to show how anti-free speech America has become these days. It shows in your replies to me that you can't even tolerate an opposing viewpoint without insinuations and veiled threats.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.

jimkleiber 6y ago
For me the challenge becomes "which government?" Should 200 different national governments be able to decide how the platform is run in their country? Should different sub-regions be able to decide? Makes me wonder what global governance would look like for this or even platform-specific governance could be. Maybe there's a play for users of specific platforms to unite and demand more representation over how a platform is governed, as workers united for more representation in companies.
silexia 6y ago
Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obnoxious patrons or comics. They can always go somewhere else. The same principle applies online, only it is much easier for someone who is not welcome in one community to go somewhere else or start their own. Never give the government control over what is acceptable speech, let each business cater to the crowd they want.
- FranzFerdiNaN 6y ago
  Ah yes, let’s just let open Holocaust-denial or Hitler-worshipping or white supremacy all be absolutely fine. Or what about doxxing or a focused effort to destroy a business online through lies and slander, on a social network that doesn’t have any rules? Is that allowed? It’s my free speech to tell lies of course. Free speech without restrictions is a silly liberal dream that never works. It’s like capitalism in that it holds it own downfall within its internal logic.

zaarn 6y ago

There is a due process if the creator of whatever was complained about decides to do something about it. Additionally, this is only a flagging process for plainly illegal content, it can (and is on FB and other platforms) be a separate process from normal reports.