3 ms·

Ok, a lot of the points raised here come up all the time; maybe it helps if I summarize some more of them: - Argument: States cannot ban/close platforms - sure

Ok, a lot of the points raised here come up all the time; maybe it helps if I summarize some more of them: - Argument: States cannot ban/close platforms - sure they can, as soon as you kick an app off the app store it's over for most of the users. That's a severe step though, and could be legally contested; my personal opinion is that it's realistic a court could deem a complete shutdown unconstitutional. - Argument: This is censorship - not really, censorship in the German legal context means pre-control of messages before dissemination. The deal here is about implementing measures to follow German laws. Of course, in a wider sense, this is some sort of censorship mechanism which has some technical similarity with other infrastructures such as those in china. But that's the tradeoff in Germany - it's restricting free speech to protect pro-democratic elements. Whether that works or not is going to be an important question in the next years.

tux3 5y ago
>This is censorship - not really, censorship in the German legal context [...] Censorship, and the legal concept of censorship, are such very different things that using one as the response to the other is silly! The local lawmaker's definition of censorship in a legal context, when transposed in a non-legal discussion, is just one country's opinion, not an authoritative answer to whether something is censorship.
- brazzy 5y ago
  What is the authoritative answer then?
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  I'm not sure I follow - the definition of censorship is in some way the most important question here. It's absolutely vital to understand that prohibiting some speech has been a core feature of Germany's democracy since 1945. At the same time, the public use of the word "censorship" has diluted so much (especially online) that it's hardly useful. So I'd argue that it totally makes sense to try and define what we're talking about, and how and why the state intervenes.
  - OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
    The reaction is, I think, to the general form of this argument: > Argument: This is X - not really, X defined legally (..) Which is in itself an often occurring argument which (in my opinion) isn't extremely useful. You are transposing the legal definition of censorship into this argument. This is perfectly alright, except most people who make the argument "this is censorship" aren't referring to the legal definition of censorship. So your counterpoint is moot. I'm not trying to say that those people are right necessarily, just that arguing against these points requires other arguments than this one. (edited for clarity)
wreath 5y ago
> . But that's the tradeoff in Germany - it's restricting free speech to protect pro-democratic elements. Whether that works or not is going to be an important question in the next years. It's a tradeoff and before you know it, you are the one sitting on the wrong side of the table. Watcha gonna do then?

tux3 5y ago

>This is censorship - not really, censorship in the German legal context [...] Censorship, and the legal concept of censorship, are such very different things that using one as the response to the other is silly! The local lawmaker's definition of censorship in a legal context, when transposed in a non-legal discussion, is just one country's opinion, not an authoritative answer to whether something is censorship.

brazzy 5y ago
What is the authoritative answer then?
uniqueuid 5y ago
I'm not sure I follow - the definition of censorship is in some way the most important question here. It's absolutely vital to understand that prohibiting some speech has been a core feature of Germany's democracy since 1945. At the same time, the public use of the word "censorship" has diluted so much (especially online) that it's hardly useful. So I'd argue that it totally makes sense to try and define what we're talking about, and how and why the state intervenes.
- OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
  The reaction is, I think, to the general form of this argument: > Argument: This is X - not really, X defined legally (..) Which is in itself an often occurring argument which (in my opinion) isn't extremely useful. You are transposing the legal definition of censorship into this argument. This is perfectly alright, except most people who make the argument "this is censorship" aren't referring to the legal definition of censorship. So your counterpoint is moot. I'm not trying to say that those people are right necessarily, just that arguing against these points requires other arguments than this one. (edited for clarity)

wreath 5y ago

> . But that's the tradeoff in Germany - it's restricting free speech to protect pro-democratic elements. Whether that works or not is going to be an important question in the next years. It's a tradeoff and before you know it, you are the one sitting on the wrong side of the table. Watcha gonna do then?