Live data from Hacker News

In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

economist.com

21–30 of 198 posts

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#21

This comment vastly understates the effects of this law. Social Media companies are scared af to be fined by the German government, so the filters are so strong, that it targets the wrong people. A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit, left leaning people as well as right leaning people alike. In general, I don't think it's a good idea for the government to decide what I can post on social media or…

It's my understanding that you can thank Facebook for that law. Unless it hits their bottom line (or shows naked female breasts) it was nearly impossible to get a post deleted, even if it was clearly illegal. While it's unfortunate that such a relatively crude law was implemented it's at the end a reaction to the general, ultralibertarian "we don't give a fuck, unless it really hurts" attitude coming out of Silicon V…

None of that is a reason to make a law that has a private company decide what are in effect criminal cases against citizens.

The minister responsible at some point made the completely idiotic remark that that is the right way to go because Facebook and the like are making a lot of money, so they also should be responsible for these costs. It seems like you can be a minister in Germany and never have heard of this concept called "taxes" that other countries use to finance an independent judicial system.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#22
post #18

> New research suggests that this digital hatred is now spilling over into the real world. I don't agree there is a distinction to be made here. The real world subsumes social media. Certainly violent crimes such as arson and assault are different, and more severe, than hateful or abusive posts or direct messages. Neither category is less real .

> Neither category is less real. I think the context is that "real world" is supposed to mean it has a physical effect. The implication is that physical crimes are legitimately categorized crimes and speech crimes are not exactly legitimate (according to where you say words, they might be criminal). I believe that some words that make someone/some group possibly feel bad (intrinsically, not just to libel), are not a…

I think we're in agreement then.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#23

This comment vastly understates the effects of this law. Social Media companies are scared af to be fined by the German government, so the filters are so strong, that it targets the wrong people. A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit, left leaning people as well as right leaning people alike. In general, I don't think it's a good idea for the government to decide what I can post on social media or…

A notion in the more calmed legal discussion (as opposed to lobby talk from the freedom movements, which I usually support but feel to be very narrow-sighted at the moment w/ regard to this law - see what is now carried into the comments here) is that this effect might be mitigated by a counterweight law - or rather addendum - that mitigates overreaction by the corporations.

This is german legal culture: our law system is first, foremost and mostly codified. And regulation is used more heavily than in the US law system.

Note that the stated goal of the law is most probably the exact point: making access to effective defense of your rights possible to anyone. The reality consisted of slow law enforcement (which has to act against people who made the speech in question, often anonymous or denying having done it), inaccessible data of the other party (for civil suits) and an intransparent mechanism that did not follow the german legal system on behalf of the corporations.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#24
post #16
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are already laws against defamation and "volksverhetzung" Exactly. There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. Instead they introduced this new shady law, which essentially turns social network companies into a part of the judicial branch. The situation now is exactly as you have described it -- the companies fear the German…

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines fo…

But there always was a very clear procedure for reporting illegal content: You visit your local police station and tell them.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#25

> New research suggests that this digital hatred is now spilling over into the real world. I don't agree there is a distinction to be made here. The real world subsumes social media. Certainly violent crimes such as arson and assault are different, and more severe, than hateful or abusive posts or direct messages. Neither category is less real .

There's a distinction between "shitposting" (or smack/trash talk) and actual hate speech. The lines can be blurry and I think Poe's law can lead to miscommunication in both directions, e.g.

* person A might say something outlandishly racist thinking it's obvious they can't be serious

* but person B actually thinks that's something perfectly reasonably to say and agrees

* which person A in turn misunderstands to mean person B is in on the joke

* 30 minutes later person A is wearing a Klansman hood in front of a burning cross and wondering how they ended up in that situation as it dawns on them they're surrounded by actual racists

I think this is how a lot of Internet trolls felt after the US elections. Some trolls just wanted to see the world burn (so Trump is the gift that keeps on giving) but many simply didn't think Trump could win (because surely people would just go for the unlikeable but safe establishment candidate rather than the obviously outrageous joke candidate).

The problem with maintaining that distinction in the digital age however is that it's very hard to tell apart the satire from the real thing. The joke works because the audience is in on it (e.g. rape jokes work because the audience and the joke teller have a mutual understanding that rape is horrible and joking about it is inappropriate -- the inappropriateness is what makes it funny) but the Internet is not the social equivalent of two friends talking smack in a pub or a comedian talking on stage in a comedy club, it's the equivalent of random people writing on a public wall or shouting in a massive crowd of strangers.

When talking to friends there's a mutual understanding of what is or isn't appropriate. There are numerous social cues that can indicate something deadpan is still meant as a joke. Even an actual misunderstanding may still come around as a funny story.

In a comedy club the environment sets the expectation. If the guy on stage calls to arms and rallies the crowd to overthrow the government the context makes it clear this isn't a serious attempt at rebellion but more likely a build up to some kind of punchline.

But on the Internet all that context is lost. Even a conversation between friends can still likely viewed by thousands or millions of other people, so the words stand on their own.

It's obviously still important to have these private exchanges but it's also obviously not appropriate to have them in public spaces where every passer-by might become a participant.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#26
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines fo…

But there always was a very clear procedure for reporting illegal content: You visit your local police station and tell them.

This is for prosecution. The removal of such speech is a civil suit. Facebook/Twitter might have taken a post more serious when the police came and asked questions, but then, they might not. And prosecution might not what a victim was after, as this involved being part of a legal case where your stance is weaker than that of the claimed perpetrator (as it is a penal case then).

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#28
post #23

This comment vastly understates the effects of this law. Social Media companies are scared af to be fined by the German government, so the filters are so strong, that it targets the wrong people. A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit, left leaning people as well as right leaning people alike. In general, I don't think it's a good idea for the government to decide what I can post on social media or…

A notion in the more calmed legal discussion (as opposed to lobby talk from the freedom movements, which I usually support but feel to be very narrow-sighted at the moment w/ regard to this law - see what is now carried into the comments here) is that this effect might be mitigated by a counterweight law - or rather addendum - that mitigates overreaction by the corporations. This is german legal culture: our law syst…

> Note that the stated goal of the law is most probably the exact point: making access to effective defense of your rights possible to anyone.

Which is completely and utterly fails at in the obvious way, in that your right to free speech is limited by a strong incentive for corporations to silence you if in doubt?

> The reality consisted of slow law enforcement (which has to act against people who made the speech in question, often anonymous or denying having done it)

And the solution to insufficient law enforcement is to have some private corporation do the job instead? I don't think that many people disagree that there was a problem, but the solution is terrible and creates lots of problems itself.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#29
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basically it means I can't say "kill all the jews/muslims, they are filthy swines" Do you know how strict those laws are? I mean, you just said that, albeit in a quotation, so I imagine that at least is out of the scope of the law? Or would it be something that got you in trouble if someone reported it?

The problem with the law is that it leaves the decision to whatever website's moderators.

GP was talking about the old, established laws, which were enough to sanction the worst cases of hate speech and which were surprisingly safe from overreach and unintended consequences. Those old ones would rather leave a case unforced than throw out the baby with the bathwater.

What you seem to be taking about is the new one, which breaks many things in the hopeless attempt to maximise enforcement of the original laws. This is a recurring theme in lawmaking: everything has a certain maximum level of reasonable enforceability, and when laws are written to increase enforcement beyond that limit they universally turn out bad.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#30
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines fo…

But there always was a very clear procedure for reporting illegal content: You visit your local police station and tell them.

And that never went anywhere, because Facebook disobeyed even court orders. They never replied to judges. They never took down posts a court had ordered them to.

The NetzDG is bad law, and will probably be repealed before the Constitution Court rules it unconstitutional.

But it was a reaction to social networks disobeying the law. An overreaction, yes, but a reaction.

I wish it were more commonly known in libertarian and net freedom circles that the pendulum swings both ways. After excesses in one direction it will swing far into the other direction.

Maybe keep that in mind when pursuing extreme goals at any cost, instead of find8ng a middle way that works for everyone.

I think the NetzDG is crap and won‘t stay for long. But I also think that Facebook and Twitter deserve all this pain.

Post reply on HN