Slashdot Mirror


Germany Approves Plans To Fine Social Media Firms Up To $57M (theguardian.com)

Social media companies face fines of up to 50m Euro ($57m) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content from their sites under a new law passed in Germany. From a report: The German parliament on Friday approved the bill aimed at cracking down on hate speech, criminal material and fake news on social networks -- but critics warn it could have drastic consequences for free speech online. Germany has some of the world's toughest laws covering defamation, public incitement to commit crimes and threats of violence, with prison sentences for Holocaust denial or inciting hatred against minorities. The measure requires social media platforms to remove obviously illegal hate speech and other postings within 24 hours after receiving a notification or complaint, and to block other offensive content within seven days. The German justice minister, Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill, said: "Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins."

36 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. -isms by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    whatever -ism, Germany is having another bout of authoritarianism that could be more fatal than the last one.

    1. Re:-isms by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      whatever -ism, Germany is having another bout of authoritarianism

      It never went away. The Germans have always prioritized conformity over liberty. But they pay a price for that. There is a bit of a startup-culture in Berlin, but Germany has produced few tech companies. The biggest is SAP, which actually has a rather authoritarian culture. If you were planning to start a tech company today, would you do it in Germany? $57 million says that you wouldn't.

      Disclaimer: I live in Silicon Valley, and there are several German expats in my neighborhood. They are doing startups, but the aren't doing them in Germany.

    2. Re: -isms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It never went away. The Germans have always prioritized conformity over liberty. But they pay a price for that.

      The 'price' they pay is social harmony... what a bummer.

      There is a bit of a startup-culture in Berlin, but Germany has produced few tech companies. The biggest is SAP, which actually has a rather authoritarian culture.

      Is this a joke? Are you back to smoking crack SanghaiBill?

      Successful tech was Germany's thing for the whole second half of the 20th century.

      If you were planning to start a tech company today, would you do it in Germany? $57 million says that you wouldn't.

      Billions of dollars say you do. In Berlin.

      Disclaimer: I live in Silicon Valley, and there are several German expats in my neighborhood. They are doing startups, but the aren't doing them in Germany.

      There are many more successful startups in Germany now than there are in silicon valley. Disclaimer: I live in silicon valley.

    3. Re: -isms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a European citizen I'm all for conformity. We need more of it, not less. Everyone must think the same and heterodoxy must be punished. If absolute conformity had been strictly enforced since the founding of the EU, we wouldn't have Brexit and euroskeptics would be where they belong: in prison.

    4. Re: -isms by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      As an EU citizen, I'm here to inform you that you do not speak for me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:-isms by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When was that? In WWII, the Germans didn't attack the US. Same as WWI. That the US attacked Germany and Germany fought back is quite different. For WWI, there were people calling for the US to enter the war on the side of the Germans. Had that happened, WWII would never have happened. Instead, the English racism in US won out, and we came to England's aid, not Germany's.

    6. Re:-isms by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how many Americans don't know their own history. It's not like there's a lot of it to learn.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re: -isms by coastwalker · · Score: 2

      As another EU citizen I have to agree. The Germans have quite a history of the evils of populism and how it can be hijacked by the use of hate speech. It is no wonder that they remain a bastion against that particular evil. It is not at all notable that they are also cracking down on illegal material either, the rest of the world is in the process of doing it; we just differ on how that should be done. There is an issue over social conformity but society has always demanded conformity as the American city ordinances against growing vegetables in your yard attest. It is not always easy to find agreement on what that conformity should be.

      It is not correct to lump hate speech, illegal activities and enforcing social conformity all in under the banner of "State Oppression". They can be and are all separate issues and hate speech and illegal activities are not directly to do with political free speech.

      Brexit was a case in point, the argument for political independence from Europe was a completely fair question. The argument that Brexit would deport all "filthy foreigners" back to their "homelands" was not fair, being both a lie and populist hate speech. Unfortunately due to the weak control of hate speech in the UK it was arguably the latter and not the former that won the Brexit vote. If that had not been so the country would not be divided as it is now.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    8. Re: -isms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So... political speech is alright so long as the politics are approved by the state, and unapproved opinions are to be censored by criminalizing their communication?

      I see a pattern repeating here, and not a good one.

    9. Re: -isms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a European citizen, I find your lack of understanding of sarcasm disturbing.

      I also suggest you stop tilting at windmills: Europe is sliding more and more into authoritarianism/totalitarianism. And it's only going to get worse as the European economy deteriorates and the old social contracts fall apart.

    10. Re:-isms by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      I said already that you are a dumbass and I say it again, this time because you think that only website companies are tech companies. You also think that startups are more important than established companies even though 99% of startups fail. I mean, people living in Silicon Valley generally have a very skewed view of the world and their place in it, but you are clearly delusional even compared to that particular baseline.
      Just so you know, Germany has a shitload of tech companies, and by that I mean real tech as in mechanical engineering, not websites. Matter of fact, large parts of US industry are running on German machines. If you need an unusual tool, machine or a technical or software solution for a niche or narrowly defined market, chances are, you'll only find it in Germany, made by a company with 20 to 100 employees that specialises in this particular matter, and is really good at it, having several decades of experience. This is what most tech companies in Germany do.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  2. "illgeal content" = "incorrect speech" by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You *will* make people speak correctly or you *will* be fined! Germany Über Alles!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:"illgeal content" = "incorrect speech" by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      Enforce censorship or Putin wins? Bloody hell, I hope that's not mainstream thought anywhere.

    2. Re:"illgeal content" = "incorrect speech" by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      It is merely a last ditch attempt to keep Merkel in office

      Last I checked, Germany loved Merkel and all she's done, or at least, a large portion of them do. That's the kicker...they want censorship. They don't seem to see the hypocrisy of using speech to advocate against free speech, but as far as I can tell, this is being met with applause.

  3. I get that logic by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If someone takes a chalk marker and draws something anti-Semitic on a window, you must go after the window manufacturer!

    1. Re:I get that logic by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      The guy who puts the manufacturer logo on the side of the chalk?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  4. I'm hoping by Dunbal · · Score: 3

    Did they clearly define what exactly comprises "hate speech", or is it just generally anything someone complains about (unless you're a white christian male of course)?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:I'm hoping by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      "Hate speech" -- whatever the majority can turn around and define. Nothing more. That's why hate speech laws need to burn in fire.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:I'm hoping by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Germany is a democracy. So the party in power at that time can define what comments are going to weaken democracy and what has to be banned.
      The powers in place after 1945 in West Germany and now Germany can direct powerful laws created to stop communism or fascism from ever entering German politics.
      Comment on a ruling party and its policy, the results of policy or suggest changes to policy?
      A rise in local crime? What people are doing in the German community?
      Get reported by social media SJW staff, or by SJW social media users, police or gov workers looking over social media?
      Face a chat down, interview or the full power of a court. Add in time away from work, legal costs? Having to find a lawyer.
      No freedom of speech. No freedom after speech.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:I'm hoping by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Well that's the problem, it's a slippery slope..
      It started being defined as nazi propaganda, then gradually creeps.. What starts of benign attracts a few complaints and suddenly its hate speech and your going to jail... You end up having to be extremely paranoid about what you say for fear of being jailed!

      And what exactly defines "hate" ? I frequently banter with friends where we call each other fat, bald (its true, we're getting old) or use various racial slurs. I don't take offense to it and neither do they.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:I'm hoping by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Germany was a democracy before 1945 too. The party in power was elected through the democratic process, and the party in power decided what had to be banned. The party democratically elected by the german people was removed from power in 1945 by a foreign invader.

      Banning communism and fascism is actually un democratic. The idea of democracy is that the people can vote for the government they want, what if the majority of people actually want a fascist or communist government?

      The biggest flaw of democracy is that the people casting the votes are not sufficiently informed or educated about what exactly they are voting for. You don't need to ban fascism, as most well informed and educated people would reject such a system anyway. Communism is a little different, true communism (as opposed to the corrupt dictatorships that have misused the name) is a noble idea but again most well informed people would realise that the utopian ideal of communism is not attainable today.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:I'm hoping by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The party in power was elected through the democratic process, and the party in power decided what had to be banned. The party democratically elected by the german people was removed from power in 1945 by a foreign invader.

      BS. The Nazi's did not have a majority in the parliament. Hindenburg made Hitler chancellor, thinking he could be controlled. Instead the Nazis dismantled the parliament. And made sure it never reopened after the convenient Reichstag fire.

      Many Germans gave the Nazis their vote as a protest vote against the established elite (that included my grandfather), not realizing that this was to be their last vote.

      Until his death my grandfather was mad as hell that Hitler tricked the country into another war. After the experience of WW1 there was absolutely no appetite for yet another war. His oft repeated lament was that he only talked about peace until he had his dictatorship firmly entrenched.

    6. Re:I'm hoping by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Actually the laws are well defined. "Hate Speech" is just the moniker you are using to refer to those laws. And by that you pretend they would be vague or inappropriate or authoritarianism or censorship.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:I'm hoping by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Germany is not really a two party state. There are two largeish parties (albeit much smaller than they used to be decades ago) and they cannot rule alone - they don't have anything close to a majority and haven't had one since 1961.

      FDP has gained some support again, but the reason why they have so few voters is that they have more or less officially defined themselves as a party for rich people and this exactly what they have tried to achieve - lowering taxes for the wealthy. Matter of fact, if you google for Klientelpolitik (German for client politics) the first suggestion is FDP. The last time they were in the ruling coalition their behavior was a disaster, this is why they have lost all of their sits in the parliament right after that - I am not sure that has happened ever before in Germany.

      They have some people who are liberal in the sense of civil liberties, and these persons are genuinely respected across party lines, but they are a tiny minority.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  5. Only make the content inaccessible in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Social media firms should not have to altogether delete hate speech, only make it inaccessible to IP addresses in Germany. The content should still be visible elsewhere unless the social media firm wants to delete it. Germany does not have the right to force it's draconian anti-free speech laws on the rest of the world. Laws that limit the ability to express ideas can and will be abused to censor ideas that are potentially threatening to the government. If Germany wants to leave the free world and become a repressive state, that's their business. However, the rest of the world should not have to abide by Germany's anti-freedom laws.

    1. Re:Only make the content inaccessible in Germany by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      or maybe western countries should get over their infantile fear of speech. Ever since the fall of the USSR, it's been a race among western powers to recreate its worst aspects.

  6. Re:You have to limit free speech to protect it by Z80a · · Score: 2

    Making social media companies leaving the country? yes it is.

  7. Don't worry, it will be fine. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    Look, all you have to do is use a social media platform that isn't a corporation with a presence in Germany. Self-hosting on a decentralized social media network is the best way to go and avoids those nasty ads and deceptive information gather/selling altogether. Sure, you're hateful rants about group XYZ wont reach as many people but you get what you pay for and you haven't paid jack shit.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Don't worry, it will be fine. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      So all I need to do is use a social network not used by my social circle.

      So at that point I'm just using a network am I not? Saying you can just use a different social network is silly. No one uses a social network because they love the network, they use it because of the people who use it.

  8. Re:You have to limit free speech to protect it by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

    This is the most dangerous and stupid thing ever posted on this site. But even you, dear AC, who would so easily surrender your liberties, are allowed to spew your nonsense here, or anywhere.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  9. Yes you do. Seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If someone takes a chalk marker and draws something anti-Semitic on a window, and the owner of the window refuse to clean it up you indeed go after the window owner (not manufacturer incidentally, as facebook and social media are the owner, not manufacturer). See if you are getting reported that somebody put anti semite message on your window, then in germany you HAVE to remove it. Now you may culturally have grown in a place where one think *any* speech must be allowed (or nearly), that is fine and dandy, I am not about to debate the merit here. But the point is that your analogy is flawed - within the context of german law.

    1. Re:Yes you do. Seriously. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both your and OP's analogies fail to consider the vast scale. Maybe a better analogy would be to say you have millions of windows popping up everyday. Some may have wrongthink on them. You are expected to know where and when the wrongthink will occur on a window, or else you are also guilty of thought crime by virtue of ignorance.

      Somehow, this is considered something other than madness, despite not just the inherent immorality and hypocrisy of censorship, but also the sheer impracticality of the matter. I sure as shit don't see Germany stepping up to propose how social media filters for latent thought crime.

      Either way, the US may have a flaming dumpster full of faults, but I'm at least glad we have the Second Amendment.

    2. Re:Yes you do. Seriously. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      Damn it, that was supposed to be First Amendment. I mean, Second too, but not the relevant one.

  10. Pity by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Social media companies face fines of up to 50m Euro ($57m) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content from their sites under a new law passed in Germany.

    Disappointed. I was hoping they'd fine social media companies just for being social media companies.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. immigrants by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 3

    You can't mention that perhaps not all the immigrants flooding into Europe are refugees.
    Also you can not disagree with the Swedens politicians when they say to the people that their country are no longer theirs and they must learn how to integrate themselves into these new cultures.
    Or when the politicians say that their own country has no culture worth mentioning and needs some new and better ones.

    Poland seems to be the only one standing up for their own culture.

  12. This is not a restriction of Free Speech by erexx23 · · Score: 2

    This is not a restriction of Free Speech. Germans know the problem Americans refuse to acknowledge.
    Hate Speech's only purpose is to incite violence, get people killed and destroy families.
    Confusing Free Speech with Hate Speech is an American problem. While its recognized for what it is internationally there is nothing preventing it in America.
    The message is clear in America. You can do say and do whatever you want under the guise of Free Speech, just let the Police take care of the fallout.
    Based Stickman is the embodiment of this problem.
    The violence will continue and the divide between Americans will widen as long as America continues to support Hate Speech.
    There is no amount of diversity that can change this.