3 ms·

From my layman's understanding of EU/German law and what I read today while selecting an attorney to handle this, it's actually unlawful to make this decision w

by gndk 3y ago

From my layman's understanding of EU/German law and what I read today while selecting an attorney to handle this, it's actually unlawful to make this decision without giving a specific reason and/or providing advance warning. But they don't want to reveal the specific reason to prevent giving out information to actual abusers and/or don't actually have one, because some blackbox algorithm made the decision. So they just reinstate the account to make you go away, but only if contacted through an attorney who argues the above. At least thats how I interpret the past successful cases that dealt with this.

semiquaver 3y ago
> it's actually unlawful to make this decision without giving a specific reason and/or providing advance warning. This is interesting! Can you share any more detail?
- gndk 3y ago
  I tried to find a good source, but now I'm not sure anymore if it's really on EU level. But there definitely was a 2021 decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH, highest court). It was about normal "posts" on FB in the context of hate speech and its moderation, not ads/ad accounts, but might still be applicable. I can only find German articles so you might need to use a translation service. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=2021-07-29&Aktenzeichen=III%20ZR%20179%2F20 https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht... This is a reasonable summary: https://www.cbh.de/news/geistiges-eigentum-medien-it/bgh-zur-sperrung-von-nutzerkonten-und-loeschung-von-beitraegen-auf-facebook/ https://www.cbh.de/news/geistiges-eigentum-medien-it/bgh-zur... Translated quote from their last section: While criminally relevant communication content may (and probably must) be removed immediately, the BGH takes the position that an internal complaints or counter-complaint procedure must be established in the case of violations that are not criminally relevant. The operator of a social network cannot simply throw a user out the door in the event of behavior that is not criminally relevant, but must announce an intended blocking with reasons and give the user concerned the opportunity to comment. The same applies to the deletion of contributions. Another article: https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/soziale-netzwerke-facebook-meinungsfreiheit-beitraege-loeschen-account-sperre-nutzer-nur-nach-abmahnung-information/ https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/soziale-netzwerke-f... And translated quote: If Instagram does not provide a reason for blocking, i.e. the blocking of the profile is unfounded, it is illegal and must be revoked (cf. LG Munich II, judgment of December 16, 2020, Az. 11 O 5166/20; LG Bielefeld, judgment of March 30 .2021, Az. 5 O 63/21)
  - moi2388 3y ago
    I’m that case I’d suggest you actually do take up a lawyer
- gndk 3y ago
  There is also the EU's Platform to Business (P2B) regulation from 2020. But from my understanding it doesn't apply to advertising, only direct transactions on the platform. So in the case of Meta, this would be "Facebook Shops" / "Instagram Shopping". Convenient loophole. Suspension and Termination of Service If the platform decides to restrict, suspend or terminate its service to a business user, it must give the business user a statement of reasons. In the case of termination, this statement of reasons must be given 30 days in advance. Handling of Complaints Platforms must establish an internal complaint-handling system for business users. This system must be easily accessible and free of charge. The platform must process all complaints within a reasonable timeframe and communicate the outcome to the complainant in an individualised manner. See https://www.ccpc.ie/business/help-for-business/guidelines-for-business/platform-to-business-regulations/ https://www.ccpc.ie/business/help-for-business/guidelines-fo... and https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019R1150 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...
dangus 3y ago
I imagine you're right. I also imagine that actual abusers will be highly unlikely to get a letter sent from a lawyer, but they could easily contact support if that was an option. Sincere good luck dealing with Meta. (Must be nice to have laws like that)

by gndk 3y ago

semiquaver 3y ago

> it's actually unlawful to make this decision without giving a specific reason and/or providing advance warning. This is interesting! Can you share any more detail?

gndk 3y ago
I tried to find a good source, but now I'm not sure anymore if it's really on EU level. But there definitely was a 2021 decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH, highest court). It was about normal "posts" on FB in the context of hate speech and its moderation, not ads/ad accounts, but might still be applicable. I can only find German articles so you might need to use a translation service. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=2021-07-29&Aktenzeichen=III%20ZR%20179%2F20 https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht... This is a reasonable summary: https://www.cbh.de/news/geistiges-eigentum-medien-it/bgh-zur-sperrung-von-nutzerkonten-und-loeschung-von-beitraegen-auf-facebook/ https://www.cbh.de/news/geistiges-eigentum-medien-it/bgh-zur... Translated quote from their last section: While criminally relevant communication content may (and probably must) be removed immediately, the BGH takes the position that an internal complaints or counter-complaint procedure must be established in the case of violations that are not criminally relevant. The operator of a social network cannot simply throw a user out the door in the event of behavior that is not criminally relevant, but must announce an intended blocking with reasons and give the user concerned the opportunity to comment. The same applies to the deletion of contributions. Another article: https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/soziale-netzwerke-facebook-meinungsfreiheit-beitraege-loeschen-account-sperre-nutzer-nur-nach-abmahnung-information/ https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/soziale-netzwerke-f... And translated quote: If Instagram does not provide a reason for blocking, i.e. the blocking of the profile is unfounded, it is illegal and must be revoked (cf. LG Munich II, judgment of December 16, 2020, Az. 11 O 5166/20; LG Bielefeld, judgment of March 30 .2021, Az. 5 O 63/21)
- moi2388 3y ago
  I’m that case I’d suggest you actually do take up a lawyer
gndk 3y ago
There is also the EU's Platform to Business (P2B) regulation from 2020. But from my understanding it doesn't apply to advertising, only direct transactions on the platform. So in the case of Meta, this would be "Facebook Shops" / "Instagram Shopping". Convenient loophole. Suspension and Termination of Service If the platform decides to restrict, suspend or terminate its service to a business user, it must give the business user a statement of reasons. In the case of termination, this statement of reasons must be given 30 days in advance. Handling of Complaints Platforms must establish an internal complaint-handling system for business users. This system must be easily accessible and free of charge. The platform must process all complaints within a reasonable timeframe and communicate the outcome to the complainant in an individualised manner. See https://www.ccpc.ie/business/help-for-business/guidelines-for-business/platform-to-business-regulations/ https://www.ccpc.ie/business/help-for-business/guidelines-fo... and https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019R1150 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...

dangus 3y ago

I imagine you're right. I also imagine that actual abusers will be highly unlikely to get a letter sent from a lawyer, but they could easily contact support if that was an option. Sincere good luck dealing with Meta. (Must be nice to have laws like that)