German Minister: Facebook Should Be Treated Like a Media Company Rather Than a Technology Platform (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Germany's Justice Minister says he believes Facebook should be treated like a media company rather than a technology platform, suggesting he favors moves to make social media groups criminally liable for failing to remove hate speech. Under a program that runs until March, German authorities are monitoring how many racist posts reported by Facebook users are deleted within 24 hours. Justice Minister Heiko Maas has pledged to take legislative measures if the results are still unsatisfactory by then. Maas has said the European Union needs to decide whether platform companies should be treated like radio or television stations, which can be held accountable for the content they publish. Under current EU guidelines Facebook and other social media networks are not liable for any criminal content or hate posts hosted on their platform. Instead, in May Facebook, Google's YouTube and Twitter signed the EU hate speech code, vowing to fight racism and xenophobia by reviewing the majority of hate speech notifications within 24 hours. But the code is voluntary not legally binding. The state justice ministers meeting in Berlin called on the government to take swift action against hate speech on the Internet. The ministers called for more transparency and said social media companies should be obliged to regularly publish figures on how many hate posts have been deleted. They also wanted more public information on how notifications are processed and the criteria behind the decision making. Facebook says it is a technology company, not a media company, that builds the tools to supply users with news and information but does not produce content.

Comments

Xenophobia is really bad.

[CajunArson]

I vote that Poland be retroactively punished for the disgusting xenophobia it showed towards Germany and the Soviet Union in WWII.

Furthermore, the Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to get away with its Xenophobia against undocumented Russian immigration.

Re:Xenophobia is really bad.

[YoungManKlaus]

The slight difference between war and seeking refuge ...

Censorship has never improved society

[ffkom]

Germany has more than enough laws already to persecute the authors of threats against others. All this new "hate speech" nonsense it just a disguise to introduce censorship, because that is so much more convenient than actually going after those who author criminal content, and it's especially useful the more vague you define "hate speech" so you can use it against any kind of opposition you do not like.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[aliquis]

The problem isn't we dislike immigrants and don't want them here.

The problem is the traitor politicians bring them in even though that is the case.

They caused the situation. Admit the mistake, don't redo it and try to undo what has been done.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're wrong and very naive. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Under strong influence by the US and with hindsight about the Weimarer Republic, after WW2 Germany was designed as a so-called "wehrhafte Demokratie", i.e. a democracy that can defend itself against both external and internal threats. That's the main reason why hate speech is prohibited Germany nowadays.

The Nazis were able to rise in the Weimarer Republic for many reasons, and one of them was that they were able to poison the political climate by extraordinary hate speech and by roaming the streets and beating up political opponents. In fact, history has shown over and over that the line between hate speech and actual violent hate crimes is very thin, and once a certain threshold is reached, terror starts to reign and democracy must fail. (Terror doesn't mean what you might think it means in this context, like in occasional acts of "terrorism", it means a constant fear throughout the population that is spread by word and actions and can turn a free country into a totalitarian regime within just a few weeks or months.)

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[avandesande]

It's funny but the leadership there seems to be ignoring the brexit/trumparica message and continues to double down on these kind of things. They shouldn't be surprised when more right wing political groups are elected.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Anonymous Coward]

it's especially useful the more vague you define "hate speech" so you can use it against any kind of opposition you do not like.

So when do we get to drag someone posting #KillAllMen on Twitter into court?

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Anonymous Coward]

12,5 million Germans or 16% live in poverty. This is a rich country with a surplus of 30 billion euro. There are a lot of working poor. There are a lot of retired people with a job living in poverty. While there are lots of working poor with 2-3 jobs the government decides to import over a million low skilled immigrants who get free houses, free money, free education and are guided to a job. The plan is (was?) to import millions extra immigrants with a minister telling that Germans are genetic weak, are interbreeding and need to be replaced by brown people. This is like the Nazi empire but reversed. The government claims that these people are needed to boost the economy. The reality is that they are needed to lower wages so working poor become even more poor. Germany doesn't have a minimum wage (or maybe it changed a while ago, but it is still well below the poverty line) and wages can still go down.

Some Germans still feel sympathetic towards the Nazi empire. The reason for this is simple. The strong laws against Nazi symbols, opinions and speech that might glorify the Nazi or deny their brutality. What is forbidden becomes attractive, especially when it is available anonymously through the internet. Also the schools who want to brainwash the kids to feel guilty about their (((great-)(great-)great-)grand parents can have the opposite effect, and it seems so distant for the youngest generation of voters. It's like the biblical fruit in the garden of Eden. But also the fact that there were many Nazi's in Nazi Germany. They weren't wiped out, just defeated. In public they are not allowed to speak but in private nobody can stop people from glorifying Nazi ideology.
 
How many of the Germans are still radical? How do they feel about racist comments toward white Germans by politicians and immigrants? Someone who lives in poverty, what must he think when hundreds of immigrants around him getting everything for free. When that German says something wrong, he gets fined. When the immigrant rapes a child he gets a hug. That's not the reality but the perception of many people fueled by non political correct or lying news sites and social media.

Of course the German government wants censorship. The mass rape in Koeln was revealed through social media. Germany couldn't censor Facebook and the likes, and were powerless to stop people from knowing the truth. They could not longer censor all media and one news paper dared to talk about the event, soon followed by all media and an 'excuse' from the state sponsored media. But it was too late. The media lost the trust of the people. When you can no longer trust the media you have to search for alternatives. You can find them on Facebook. A politician or journalist (I've only read the title and intro of a pay walled article) compared Trump with Mussolini. Mussolini is the one who inspired Hitler. They are afraid that the Germany furry awakens again.
 
What surprises me is that they are way too focused on Hitler and his supporters and fail to see that extremism is a weed of which the seed is already planted. The only thing it needs is a fertile ground. The current society is a fertile ground. People have it generally good, but they feel more and more disconnected from the government. They no longer feel represented (the multicultural message is often is anti white in a predominantly white country). You will not stop to seed from flowering by censoring Facebook. This will have the reverse effect. Internet is too decentralized to take total control. There are already many alternatives and even more will pop up when Facebook becomes useless for something else then censored (and thus untrustworthy) media.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[AHuxley]

Germany will revert to its post 1945 laws in the West. Total control over anything that could endanger "democracy".
No communists, no fascism, no cults that are incompatible with democracy.
No commenting on German gov or mil or BND or BfV policy or what happened after "free" speech is attempted.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[CrashNBrn]

Which other Western Countries? Canada and Mexico? Well then, you are probably correct, as you wont find many non-tourist minorities in Mexico... and Canada is where all those mistreated minorities flee to.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[jedidiah]

If Germany is now a mirror of the US, then you're talking bullshit. You don't need to defend a government like that from "hate" speech.

The line between speech and actual crimes is a very big one. Conflating the two allows for precisely the kind of suppression of dissent that the Nazis were capable of achieving with thugs.

The problem with Germany wasn't "some guy that said mean things", it was piss poor checks and balances. The Weimar constitution was a piece of crap.

Who was responsible for that shit anyways?

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[cayenne8]

It just seems like the crime should be on the INDIVIDUAL posting that shit. If I mail out 100 hate mail letters is it the fault of the post office ? No. That's on me.

If FB obstructs finding out who the individual is, that seems like a crime. But arrest the dude doing it.

There should be no such thing as a law against "hate speech".....

I know this is Germany we're talking about, but really....pretty much all speech, including "I hate the xyz people"....should not be against the law.

I mean unless you are actually inciting violence against a person or people, there should be nothing against any law about expressing any of your beliefs, no matter how vile, in public.

Vile speech is often the type of speech that MOST need protection. Remember, not that long back ago, vile and unpopular speech was about equal rights for women, civil rights, etc.

Any time you have the government censor speech that is unpopular, it might not only be taking out things that are truly bad for all times, but it also may target things that NEED to be changed, but isn't a popular sentiment amongst the majority......yet.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[TapeCutter]

I am all in favour of free speech, however my ideological beliefs (or yours) don't change the FACT that Christian shock jocks inspired the 1990's Rwandan genocide via propaganda broadcast on AM radio. Once the killing started the leaders used the same radio network to direct the actions of the attackers, they were more "efficient" than Hitler's or Stalin's extermination camps, they killed a million people in less than two weeks with little more than farm tools and matches.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[TapeCutter]

Which other Western Countries?

All of them? - Most EU nations, the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ all have hate speech laws. There is no nation on earth that has absolute free speech, even the US bans certain types of speech such as the classic "yelling fire in a theatre" and the eternally popular prohibition on child porn.

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[fazig]

Well, that's mostly the case.

Hate speech is not about stating that you "hate" a group of people. That's protected by your freedom of expression in Germany. You may also insult or offend people based on race, colour, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever. And while there are lawsuits here and there filed in those cases, they're usually dismissed. However what's not protected and classified as hate speech is if your speech includes threads of violence or similar things, that are covered by coercion laws. In German the expression for this is "Volksverhetzung" which loosely translates to 'incitement of the masses'. Another expression is 'Hassprediger' which translates to hatemonger and describes people that incite hatred or violence towards other people or groups. Holocaust denial is the really special case in Germany, that should disappear soon. The more time goes an, the fewer people's experiences get denied and ridiculed by this. The original intention to get rid of the remaining Nazis, was also fulfilled. There's no practical reason to keep this up any more besides of censorship of people who want to publicly declare that they're ignorant of a lot of evidence.

The weird thing is that there are already laws that cover these things. Individuals can be persecuted, although they rarely get convicted. So why trying to make platforms liable? The answer is simple: Next year is election year and politicking, as in doing things for the sake of appearing to care for the people, is a very popular move in politics.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Z80a]

The biggest problem is that it don't work.
Yes, you can stop someone from saying something on a platform you can control, like facebook.
But anyone can just go, set up an encrypted IRC server and make a tiny hate box anywhere, and on those, shit gets worse because there's no criticism, no sanity, and you get also censored, but for going against the hate message.
If you really want to reduce those hate speeches on the internet, you need to fight it with discussion, good arguments.and impartial a trustworthy media.
You only win if they rationalize and reach the same conclusion as you do.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Nephandus]

The EU is a rising PC-police-state, with backroom Umbridge-like power-mongers making unquestionable laws without any public authorization. BAD example if you're promoting this...

The speech act of yelling fire in a theater isn't what's specifically banned. Any act that recklessly provokes a riot is illegal. Same as telling a gunman to fire can be an act of murder. It's not the speech that's illegal, just what's done with it, which applies to any act. "Hate speech" is something else entirely. You're conflating in very dangerous ignorance there.

"Child" porn law's based on a blatant case of false cause. It's politicians and moral guardians playing unqualified, idiot shrinks and shouting down anyone that calls them on it, while frothing at the mouth. They'll even spout shit about "How would like your rape being shared on the internet?", despite that being perfectly legal for any other victim and despite adolescents being jailed for producing their own material... It's just rabid "kill the icky" psychosis, not anything rational. They go scorched earth on anyone not special enough. Hackers can easily destroy random people with the laws as written, much less the legislation from the bench that's actually enforced. Try it on some grandmother or a judge, and they'll get handwaved where many others would be gone already.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[RandomSurfer314]

No communists, no fascism, no cults incompatible with democracy. Sounds good to me.

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[RandomSurfer314]

Protecting representative democracy. A republic without democracy is just another word for an authoritarian regime, it turns into a swamp of corruption or even a dictatorship within 1-2 generations. Basic democracy is also bullshit, of course, and traditionally only demanded by undemocatic authoritarians outside of Switzerland.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Mashiki]

All of them? - Most EU nations, the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ all have hate speech laws. There is no nation on earth that has absolute free speech, even the US bans certain types of speech such as the classic "yelling fire in a theatre" and the eternally popular prohibition on child porn.

Except that hate speech laws are used to censor and coerce people. That's what's happening here in Canada. One of the previous heads of the CHRC fabricated evidence to use against his political enemies(people speaking out about islam and it's abuse of women). That went on for years until the people had enough money to actually file a lawsuit. We're seeing that with the "gender pronoun" bullshit today. The current government is pushing through a law if you don't call someone by their pronoun it's hate speech and it will be codified into law. We've seen this attack against comedians for crass humor and them being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then we get into the cases where only some types of hate speech are gone after...until there's a huge public outcry over it. See the recent case where a "immigrant newspaper" was calling for the death of Jews. Oh it'd been going on for a couple of years, it wasn't until it hit the media that the police did anything. Or the crown didn't lay charges, despite FOI requests showing that there had been a steady stream of complaints against it.

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In Latin, "res publica" simply meant "the state".

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[drinkypoo]

The Nazis were able to rise in the Weimarer Republic for many reasons, and one of them was that they were able to poison the political climate by extraordinary hate speech and by roaming the streets and beating up political opponents.

No. That's two of them, and one of them is much more important than the other. If the law had gone after them for beating up political opponents, then their hate speech would have been recognized for what it was instead of turned into an effective tool of terrorism and fear. Like it or not, the German authorities were complicit in the Nazi rise to power.

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[TheRaven64]

The relevant difference between Facebook and he post office is that the post office is a common carrier and to maintain that status it must carry anything that someone pays it to carry, without passing judgement on the contents. If I write a postcard (where the text is visible during the posting process) that's entirely full of libel, then the post office is not allowed to refuse to carry or censor it. Facebook, on the other hand, reserves the right to censor anything and to refuse service to anyone.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[serviscope_minor]

The line between speech and actual crimes is a very big one.

No, it isn't. Seriously the so-called proponents of free speech on slashdot are among it's worst enemies.

Why?

Because you all keep trotting out the line about how speech doesn't do anything on it's own and is harmless. With defenders like you, free speech doesn't need enemies. The reason that free speech needs defending is precisely because words have immense power.

How many soldiers did George Washington personally kill? Enough to overthrow an empire? Or did he instead use the power of speech to get enough people behind his cause for that to happen? Or if you prefer, Hitler never personally killed anyone, those 10 million murders attributed to him were entirely down to the power of speech.

So speech is powerful and it is foolish to pretend that actions are unconnected to speech. If that were the case, then speech would not be important enough to be worth defending.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[bytesex]

"The Nazis were able to rise in the Weimarer Republic for many reasons, and one of them was that they were able to poison the political climate by extraordinary hate speech and by roaming the streets and beating up political opponents."

I don't know if you're doing this as a rhetorical trick (that would be ironic!) but your 'and' in this sentence conflates using speech and beating people up (because you seem to suggest that the Nazis used other tricks as well, so this is, as it were 'one item on the list'). Try to keep the discussion pure (hah!) - they are not the same thing. An argument against the one (using speech), is not an argument against the other (beating people up), but you make it seem like it is.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[bytesex]

I don't get it. Are you blaming the radio, the machetes, or the people? Or are you perhaps saying that there are plenty of organizations out there that could kill a million people in two weeks time, but that don't, because they would be held accountable, even if eventually.

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[ArmoredDragon]

They go a bit beyond that though, namely they ban ownership of WWII memorabilia, goose-stepping or Hitler salutes (even when they're just being done mockingly or in jest.)

At any rate, this proposal sounds like SOPA. They're essentially expecting facebook to review every single post that somebody considers even mildly offensive, and I'll bet that some reviewer who is expected to cover high volume will take the "safer than sorry" approach and delete benign content.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As I've said, naive and wrong.

What's clownishly naive is asserting government control over speech can be wielded...properly.

All government has to do to wield it safely...is to get most people behind the censorship. Then you get to silence the government's opposition. I mean The People's opposition.

Oh hell, the opposition to those in power.

You talk brownshirts beating people up? Where are the modern cameras of today, and the Internet, to keep an eye on them?

It is the power to censor that got Germany into that mess, officially, and unofficially by beating people up.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Chrisje]

I wonder why such a misinformed and misleading post is deemed insightful by forum members.

Firstly, in most European countries, the right to free speech is not actually legally or even constitutionally enshrined. There is the usual right to assembly, free thought and a freedom to adhere to any creed one wishes, but in most European countries Slander, Inciting to Hate or public unrest and Defamation are all illegal under criminal law, mind you. Therefore, as a default, there are legal limitations to how free speech actually is. And this is a good thing.

When the "free speech" mob starts trotting out "censorship" as a mule to flog, I get a little tired. In a world that contains 7 billion people of all colours, creeds, genders, races and beliefs, one should not strive for completely unmoderated speech. Because there are too many narrow minded morons in this world, it would descend into chaos and anger. As my grandfather wisely used to quip: You can think what you like, but you can't say whatever you think.

That out of the way, the legal definition of hate speech is quite well defined in a number of European countries as well, and prosecutions can actually be realised. Specifically the Germans have *ahem* learned a couple of painful lessons from their own history, although it must be said that Europe between 1860 and 1940 had large institutionalised racist agendas with the so-called "Race-biological Institutions" in various countries, so by no means do I want to single out the Germans as the only purveyors of a certain breed of thinking. So while this is not a reductio ad Hitlerium argument, one must be vigilant of the possible consequences of unchecked hate speech, "Volksverhetzung", "Aanzetten tot haat", "Agitation publique" or whatever you wish to call it.

As for those who actually use social media to spread poppycock, hate-speech, racism, bile, xenophobia and religious fervour alike, I for one do think it would be great if these people be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The law is there to be enforced, whether you intend to kill, steal, embezzle, con or incite to hatred. But the lack of editorial decisions from Facebook's side is something they should indeed be held accountable for. Facebook serves as a news outlet to some 38% of the American public. I shudder to think about that, given the amount of moronic vitriol and cat video's that permeate that network. The likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter wield quite a bit of power, and their corporate nature drives them to shun any form of responsibility.

From my perspective, it is heartwarming to see a nation state such as Germany finally spring into action to protect the education, sovereignty, privacy and safety of its citizens by holding these media corporations (which they are by now) accountable for the information they provide to said citizenry.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[Chrisje]

Well... If you say a couple of evangelical DJ's caused the genocide in Rwanda, you are casually sidestepping 200 years of colonialist politics on the African continent where western powers (In the case of Rwanda Germany and mostly Belgium) defined borders that went straight across areas regardless of culture, tribal status or inhabitants. What's worse, the propensity of the Belgian colonialists to incite the population divide by elevating one of the present tribes to a position of privilege so as to secure their own footing in said colony didn't exactly stabilize the region either.

But hey, I do doubt said evangelical DJ's helped matters much, I'll give you that.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[YoungManKlaus]

Hate speech is probably a bad translation of Wiederbetätigung. Also what FB does falls under obstruction of justice as well as assisting in a crime.

Re: Censorship has never improved society

[YoungManKlaus]

> There should be no such thing as a law against "hate speech".....

And there isn't. The two laws in question are Wiederbetätigung ("but the nazis were the good guys", "no, KZs are a lie") and Volksverhetzung (sedition), both of which are generally interpreted _very_ narrowly.

Re:Censorship has never improved society

[ffkom]

It's weird how you connect the current censorship of speech in Germany to experiences in the Weimarer Republik. You should know, that back then, there was a lot of censorship applied to the media by government officials. Much more than today. And look how this did not quite prevent the Nazis to rise.

Re:If FB is a media company...

[unixisc]

Precisely! If all members can make up and post stuff about themselves and events around them, then how could Facebook classify them as employees/reporters? Which is what they would have to do if they were a media company

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[unixisc]

I have a FB account under a fake identity only b'cos I was asked to by some other online board that I'm actively involved w/. Other than that, I don't have any FB account for my family or relatives to follow. So don't get the deal. I've been considering joining Twitter just to follow our great leader, but so far, haven't felt like it. And even there, I'd be conflicted about joining under my real identity

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[lxs]

Not having a Facebook account is the new not having a television.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[ShanghaiBill]

Facebook is a tarbaby for the 'look at me, look at me!' crowd. Thank dog they are there, think how bad the S/N ratio would be if those morons were on the wider net.

Thank you for this thoughtful and eloquent post. You are not like those Facebook people, who post meaningless blather that adds nothing to the betterment of humanity. You are obviously so much better than them.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[unixisc]

I don't have that either :-)

Re:It should be treated like a paper

[unixisc]

But it's impossible to wash/wipe one's butt w/ a website

Or maybe it should be treated as ...

[Marsoupial]

a giant fraud, siphoning off billions in employee wages and lost productivity from companies all over the globe into free content for Facebook. I watch people sitting at work posting on Facebook and the realization is that their employer is literally paying them to generate content for Facebook.

Re:Or maybe it should be treated as ...

[turbidostato]

"I watch people sitting at work posting on Facebook and the realization is that their employer is literally paying them to generate content for Facebook."

Since those people is most probably using company-provided devices and bandwith, if it's really such a big nuisance for the company, they could easily block facebook access, couldn't they?

So, those companies are either moronic -therefore deserving what they get, or don't mind that kind of usage -therefore, why should you bother?

Re:Or maybe it should be treated as ...

[Marsoupial]

Not really - there are legitimate business uses for Facebook - social media posts, marketing research, and advertising etc. So you have to have finely granular control over who is and is not authorized to use Facebook. Also you run the risk of pissing off your employees because you are clamping down on internet access. You have to pick your battles as a manager.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[avandesande]

More like a honey pot for marketers/employers/insurers/government.

Merkel,Obama, Endangered Press want Censorship

[bongey]

Merkel kissing up to Obama's wanting "creating places where people can say, this is reliable" . Along with the media reporting fake news about fake news. CBS quoting a study from Buzzfeed, fucking Buzzfeed. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fa... .

Obama and Merkel are a bit too close http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix...

Re:Merkel,Obama, Endangered Press want Censorship

[rtb61]

Note the fake, fake news in that article. Yes, Hillary Clinton did sell arms and munitions to Saudi Arabia, knowing full well that Saudi Arabia would be giving those arms and munitions to ISIS and her emails exposed that. So to say Hillary Clinton sold weapons to ISIS is pretty accurate and they simply did this via an intermediary, Saudi Arabia (they supplied the cash, that cash going to the Clinton Foundation and US War industries).

Censorship is not the way, a protected space is. What to add the word News in you title or in the story, they will have to be accurate, unable to prove that accuracy in a court of law and you will pay a price. Do it as a government representative with tax payers dollars, then fucker, you are going to jail, even and especially when you are Uncle Tom Obama selling a corporate line. Make no mistake when governments lie to their citizens, using those citizens tax dollars, this to retain power, that is an electoral crime, false advertising and fraud all of which they can be penalised for and prosecuted and imprisoned and factually as proven, they have committed those crimes. Lied to to the electorate, using tax payer dollars, in order to retain power at election time, so that they can continue to sell corrupted legislation to major campaign donors.

So where is our safe space from lying fuck politicians and endless corporate PR=B$, apparently the plan is, no fucking where.

Re:Merkel,Obama, Endangered Press want Censorship

[avandesande]

Should be more fun than the back rub she got from Bush.

Re:Merkel,Obama, Endangered Press want Censorship

[ooloorie]

Along with the media reporting fake news about fake news. CBS quoting a study from Buzzfeed

The NYT, WP, NPR, etc. just don't understand that people stopped listening to them because they have about the same level of independence and veracity as the old Pravda. If you need a recent example of that, look at the fake news about Bannon's supposed antisemitism and the egg all these media sites ended up with all over their faces.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[tlhIngan]

Facebook is a tarbaby for the 'look at me, look at me!' crowd.

Thank dog they are there, think how bad the S/N ratio would be if those morons were on the wider net.

The problem is though a LOT of people get their "news" from social media exclusively. If it's posted on Facebook, it's the news. Doesn't matter if it really happened, or if it's completely fake. (In fact, the more click-baity the news, the more likely it's going to be shared and treated as real.).

Hell, I know more than a few people who believe Reddit is the source of everything they need to know.

Heck, I should start a "here a Trump's tax returns" fake-post and give it a bit of a click-bait titles and information. Do one fake tax return showing how Trump is really for democrats, and one for the alt-right and you can have both sides believing contradiction. Depending on who you want to troll, it'll be easy because too many people believe that if it's on the Internet, it's true. Doubly so if it's Facebook.

The art of critical thought is dead. If you can troll it, people will think it's real.

"Hate Speech" definition

[CanEHdian]

Instead, in May Facebook, Google's YouTube and Twitter signed the EU hate speech code, vowing to fight racism and xenophobia by reviewing the majority of hate speech notifications within 24 hours

OK, so now "hate speech" is equal to "racism and xenophobia". Well, we already knew that to be true on Twitter where #killallwhitemen is perfectly fine, but it's nice to know that it's also true on YouTube and Facebook. They want a Trump in Europe too?

Re: "Hate Speech" definition

[bursch-X]

The AfD is working on that, but it might be a female Trump. That'll make SJWs' heads spin "internalised misogyny!! Shriek!"

Re: "Hate Speech" definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah Palin is basically the kind of woman that SJWs hate.

Re: "Hate Speech" definition

[ooloorie]

The AfD is working on that, but it might be a female Trump.

So, pretty much like Merkel herself then.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[HornWumpus]

Those people are too stupid to do anything about.

Before Facebook they likely just took anything from CNN as truth. Before that ABC/NBC/CBS.

You just can't fix stupid.

Re: If FB is a media company...

[Luthair]

I think we all know the majority of social media has no value. In fact the poster should pay the rest of society for wasting their time.

Blocking "Hate Speech" enables more hate

[czmax]

The recent US election has shown us that forcing people to be civil does not also force them to "not hate" each other.

What it appears to have done is driven much of that hate out of sight -- and thus out of discussion. One of the things we're struggling with right now is understanding the distinctions between
* who really hates who
* who doesn't care about "hate speech" being used so long as other political goals are met
* who doesn't really believe it is hate speech
* who doesn't hate other people

Yes, the differences between these choices is totally vague. Thats because we've been lumping it all under one "not politically correct" label and burying it.

People have feelings all around this spectrum. Perhaps its better to allow hate speech with the understanding that the proper response is more language, more communication, and less silence and brooding?

Correct, letting people talk doesn't solve the problem of hate. Neither does forcing their silence.

Perhaps open communication is the only way to address, or at least explore how to address, the underlying problem?

And frankly, I was a little surprised at where some of my acquaintances were in various places on this spectrum. A very religious man turned out to not care about hate, hateful feelings, hateful laws, etc so long as his particular religious goals were met. I'd have never known this about him without the open communication forced by the election rhetoric. It might have been a more productive years of friendship if I'd known where he stood earlier on.

Re:Blocking "Hate Speech" enables more hate

[jandersen]

You may or may not be right in what you are saying about this particular issue, but I think you are speaking from a background of a particular interest: you think freedom of speech is more important than other considerations in society. I am not here expressing any personal opinion about this, only pointing out the context. It is important to keep in mind that government and state are there to serve the whole of their people - ie. ideally all participants in society - not just certain interest groups, and if the overwhelming majority feels that freedom of speech isn't as important as, say, the safety of the weaker members of society, then it is right of the state and the government to try to address the issue. It is of course perfectly valid to argue that the way to address it is to try to educate people, but that takes a long time, and perhaps the issue needs handling now? Also, many - even most, I suspect - will agree that freedom of any sort comes with responsibility: if your use of your personal freedom harms others, then you are responsible for that damage and should potentially be punished for it.

It's like driving your car: you have the right to drive on any public highway, but if you drive recklessly and kill somebody, or if your actions cause an accident that kills somebody, then you have a responsibility for what happened. Of course, reckless driving is in itself an offence for which you can be punished, but you could argue that it shouldn't be - that it isn't necessary, because other laws already make it possible to punish a reckless driver for killing people etc, but I think most will agree that it is better to make the shortcut, since reckless driving is very often the cause of serious accidents. Stopping reckless drivers prevents accidents, and it may also prevent many from getting to the point where they have killed somebody and face a long, custodial sentence. Hate speech is the same thing: it is very often the trigger for racially aggravated crime, terrorism etc. Making hate speech an offence punishable by a fine may make some think a bit before just spouting some nonsense because they are drunk and angry; the first step down any path is always the hardest - once you get used to targeting a group with words, it becomes easier to think that beating up somebody isn't that bad and so on.

I'm not saying that I am necessarily right - but it would be deeply wrong not to have the debate simply because of "Freedom of Speech". I mean, freedom of speech aplies here as well, am I right?

Re:Blocking "Hate Speech" enables more hate

[loonycyborg]

Even if you forbid people to speak up they still can act on their beliefs. The only thing that forced political correctness accomplishes is burying problems under the rug. With it you don't know what people really think. So you can't address their concerns. Hate doesn't appear from nothing. It has its own social or economic roots, and with enforced doublespeak rules in action the government and other concerned parties can't get to the root of issues. It allows them to pretend that nothing is happening. But issues remain and people act in any way they can. Thus you get those protest votes for brexit and "joke" candidate Trump.

Re:If FB is a media company...

[Anonymous Coward]

FB users are content creators - who, of their own free will, decide to surrender all rights to the content they create to their publisher.

But FB is definitely a publisher. Why is this even controversial?

Re:Rest-of-the-World: FU

[sd4f]

They certainly can leave, but I also think it's time that web based companies no longer hide behind being a 'tech company' when they clearly earn their money from regular mainstream non-tech services, such as advertising.

These companies use 'tech' to compete against established companies in existing markets. They don't create 'tech' to sell, in most instances, their 'tech' is not for sale. For instance, you can't go to uber and license their software to set up your own uber platform, similarly, does facebook have anything to sell other than advertising (and possibly data)?

For this reason, I think facebook is a publishing/broadcasting/media company. They should be bound by those standards in the respective jurisdiction that they operate, and not get a free pass because their approach is different to traditional companies in that market. I don't agree with censorship, but Germany doesn't have a full equivalent of the 1st ammendment, they specifically censor many areas; most of europe does, and the history of censorship is centuries long. The USA is an anomaly when it comes to free speech.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[AHuxley]

Follow the funding and support by foundations, monarchies, cults, theocracies, kingdoms, NGO's and celebrities.
Teams of SJW's really like telling users what the 'net' will look like and how they can fix it with censorship and reporting users to govs.
All the fun people will exit to US platforms that offer real freedom of speech before, during and after a comment or link.
The US brands had it all in the US First Amendment but lost it all to SJW policy. Sell the US first amendment to the world and enjoy growth and a huge user base.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[sd4f]

I think you're just ahead of the curve!

Facebook on the front page again

[Gussington]

And only 3 hours since the last story, and 18 hours since the one before that.
This is supposed to be news for nerds, not news for Kardashian groupies...

Well, it is

[tietokone-olmi]

In an era where computer technology underlies any and all business and other organized operations, it's quite clear that companies shouldn't be able to pass for "technology companies" simply because they implemented their own platform. Rather, the term should be reserved for those companies who have no other business besides making and selling hardware, software, and support services for the two.

For example, this makes Uber a taxi company, and Airbnb a hotel company, subject to the rules and regulations of those industries -- rather than being able to make up their own rules with "independent contractors" and "helping letters and renters meet (while handling customer service, cash transactions, and taking a cut in the middle)".

However you feel about the German censorship legislation, the above should stand in any nation where rule of law trumps neoliberalist contract-brokering; which in a liberal democracy it should.

Effectively...

[matbury]

...FB has become a second-rate media company. Not many media companies get their own news these days. They get it from other sources; local newspapers and TV, press wire services, official govt. statements, etc. and then put their own spin on other journalists' stories, AKA churnalism. Facebook makes its money via the same process by getting its users to do it for free. Just because FB exercises almost no editorial control, doesn't mean that they're not responsible.

And hate speech is hate speech. Stopping people from inciting hatred, prejudices, marginalising vulnerable minorities, etc. is a reasonable requirement of any civilised society.

Re:Effectively...

[matbury]

Didn't take us long to prove Godwin's Law, did it?

Re: free country, "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without knowing civilization." (Unknown, possibly James Agate) - I guess you're right.

Re:Germany has solved its difficult problems alrea

[Anonymous Coward]

well, we've seen what happens if those posts are not regulated: someone like Trump gets elected.

SCNR

Re:"Social media"

[drinkypoo]

I thought Germans were a bit quicker than that.

Fantastic engineers, terrible neighbors. Why does all the fisting and shit porn come out of Germany, anyway? I mean, I'm only opposed to one of those things (ironic to some, given my nickname, but it's about booze and not about bombing toilets) but seriously. Germany is fucking weird. Literally.

You have a very naive view, then

[MikeRT]

I don't know if you are German, but I'm an American who has tried to follow European news on what is happening with the migrant issue. What I see is a people who are more prone to law and order and obedience than Americans actually doing things like firebombing buildings, knifing politicians and such. Germany is now starting to go down a very interesting path, and if Merkel gets her way much longer I suspect that path will include electing leaders who make Trump look like he favors open borders. She wags her finger and openly silences criticism, but to any objective observe it should be obvious that she herself is the primary reason why "hate" is becoming a problem in Germany. Germans, like Americans, and pretty much most of the human race, don't want to be inundated by foreigners especially under a leader who acts like she is all but "electing a new people" for her country.

Re:Rest-of-the-World: FU

[3247]

Facebook has offices in both Berlin and Hamburg. It's clearly a German company and should obey any order given by the German government.

Germany is still a country where the rule of law prevails. They are entitled to contest such orders (or the laws). And they would win because holding a platform responsible for third-party content is a blatant violation of EU law.

Re: If FB is a media company...

[fedos]

Facebook makes money off the media, therefore the media has value to Facebook and they would have to compensate the creators.

Re:What The Hell is Going On on Facebook?

[LienRag]

You mean it's a proof of sanity?