
Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate - techrede
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/technology/facebook-deletion-center-germany.html
======
Eridrus
I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but
individual users are not liable for creating it.

It's also interesting that Human Rights Watch has come out against the German
law: [https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-
me...](https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-media-law)

~~~
doesnt_know
Hate speech laws aren't completely uncommon, so individual users would be
liable for creating it. In NZ law, it's part of our Human Rights Act:

[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304642.html)

"It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or distribute written matter
which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio
or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening,
abusive, or insulting"

~~~
pitaj
Wow that's terribly vague. Insulting people publicly is illegal?

~~~
doesnt_know
It's in the "Other forms of discrimination" => "Racial disharmony" section, so
it's applied in the context of racism (there are other sections that dictate
other acts such as sexual harassment etc). There is also another section on
"131 - Inciting racial disharmony"

[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM305478.html)

which references the previously mentioned section. But also followed up by

[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM305482.html)

"No prosecution for an offence against section 131 shall be instituted without
the consent of the Attorney-General."

------
kodablah
What even is this article? There is nothing substantive here. Like many other
mainstream tech articles these days, this reeks of mass-media narrative
control. I just wonder if it's the clicks that drive these or if there are
other actors behind the scenes encouraging the deluge of anti-FB, anti-Goog,
anti-Twitter, etc articles. Maybe I'm viewing this too broadly, but I get an
icky feeling of intentional furor construction.

~~~
MereKatMoves
> the deluge of anti-FB, anti-Goog, anti-Twitter, etc articles. Maybe I'm
> viewing this too broadly, but I get an icky feeling of intentional furor
> construction.

Those companies are enabling the criminals. German law defines the users as
criminals and it is this pre-internet law that is being upgraded and enforced,
because profiting from enabling illegal activity is clearly wrong.

FB employs 1200 people to deal with this... why is that? It isn't their fault
that the world has so many fucktards in it, but is their problem when they
give a platform to their illegality

furor over the failings of the "city state" that FB are trying to establish.
Good

~~~
kodablah
Ok...I mean you see it that way and I don't really agree, but that is
unrelated to my comment. Mine is a general comment about the flow of "news"
concerning large web companies. It feels like this article was just the next
one on the weekend assembly line. I'm not really a fan of manipulation even if
I agree w/ the manipulators. Granted, my observations are my own based on the
news cycles and my limited empirical evidence leaves my suspicions in the
realm of conspiracy theory. Just a comment on the patterns I see.

~~~
Faark
Could you be a bit more specific about your criticism of the article. I found
it interesting. I don't really see how it is anti-FB. It seems to describe the
current situation by anecdotes instead of statistics/scientific analysis. I
can understand some not liking that style (especially considering information
per time), but it seems highly effective at describing issues to most people
(probably the thing you call media narrative control). I've got no problem
with that.

But your "There is nothing substantive here" is worrying me, since it probably
means you'd like more that a somewhat mundane description of the situation
without judgment. Did you expect a strong position, probably in favor of US
free speech values? It to be a hit piece for or against NetzDG? Strong policy
recommendations with big impacts? I don't want that! I like our current
society and want marginal fixes for its countless little flaws. But responding
to the current hot issue (lets say school shootings) with extremist positions
(arm everyone vs take all guns away) seems highly unproductive in improving
our lives.

------
shiado
"Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law", anybody have the
definition of hate speech according to this law? This article has a lot of
information but a cogent definition of hate speech is not given.

~~~
chmod775
There's no new "hate speech law". There's only new law that punishes sites for
failing to remove content that was already illegal. For this they have up to
24 hours, or a week if it is a more complex matter.

That article generally misrepresents German laws, making them seem more
draconian than they actually are.

For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't
"objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism".

The German definition of Volksverhetzung, often translated as "hate speech",
is also quite a bit a narrower than what your average native english speaker
would understand as hate speech: basically, under that law, ONLY hate speech
against a group or individual targeting them for belonging to a certain
_ethnic group_ , _nationality_ , or _religion_ is illegal IF it is
disseminated in a way that has the potential to disrupt public peace.

~~~
slavik81
> displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it
> to "promote (the) national socialism".

It seems that only applies if your work falls clearly within a few categories
of exceptions. For example, Wolfenstein, a game about a Jewish commando
fighting against the Nazis, was censored in Germany to comply with the law.

> "In Germany, we've removed all Nazi symbols and references. Unlike films and
> other works of art, video games in Germany are forbidden to use such symbols
> and references as they are classified in Germany as toys and not media art."
> The illegal display of Nazi imagery is punishable by three years in prison
> in Germany.
> ([http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27488254](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27488254))

Even "Maus: A Survivor's Tale" struggled to be published uncensored. They
eventually succeeded in convincing the culture ministry to allow publication,
but it's not enough to be anti-Nazi.

~~~
tscs37
>For example, Wolfenstein, a game about a Jewish commando fighting against the
Nazis, was censored in Germany to comply with the law.

Art, sciences and education are obviously exempt from these rules and while
many pretty much assumed games to be art a recent court confirmed that games
would be ruled as art.

The reason why Wolfenstein was censored is because of the USK, the board
behind age ratings in germany, which has in the past been rather strict with
nazi symbolism, regardless of context. They've softened up a lot and would
wave through games with nazi symbolism like the newer Wolfenstein titles,
however publishers don't want to take the chances of having to reapply for
rating and simply already submit a censored version before it even hits their
desks.

------
sqdbps
And there you have it: the New York Times will side with censorship and
against free speech as long as it's to the detriment of a tech company.

------
baxtr
I love my “Vaterland” :) but I’m not sure if that’ll work. We are to small and
Facebook to large and smart for regulation

~~~
adventured
Facebook will adapt to as many global regulatory approaches as it has to, and
there will be dozens of them at a minimum that will be major markets and
require compliance. The world is going to get very, very messy when it comes
to complying with all the various approaches nations will implement (to speech
broadly, politics, commerce, privacy, you name it). The compliance will act as
a tax on its fat margins, basically.

It will become nearly impossible to form a new global social network as these
rules come into being. No other entities will be capable of dealing with it,
you'll have to have vast resources to do it. It won't be about paid vs ad
supported approaches, that doesn't matter for that purpose: the localized
compliance will go far beyond privacy (that is merely one issue on a long list
of compliance requirements that will exist in the future, it'll be as complex
and varied as cultures and government systems are).

~~~
simion314
The solution is to have local networks, then you care only about the local
laws. Like on reddit each subreddit has it's rules, you have to respect the
local rules , but you can participate in any subreddit

~~~
Fnoord
Pretty much, but its a tad complex.

Microsoft hosts for example in Ireland (part of the EU), but is an American
company.

A subreddit has its own moderators and rules, but has to also adhere the
global Reddit policy.

FOSS is developed by people all over the world.

One solution is to lay low and be low profile. For example, an invite-only
system, or E2EE. Another is to host in a more liberal country. But if the
website is in Russian, it is assumed that its being served for Russians
(people in Russia).

------
js8
They are NOT learning from their history. In fact (to quote from
[https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-
speech-v...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-
violence)):

"I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have
hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that
Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment
is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been
prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has
little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor
Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech.
Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and
countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-
relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never
have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to
1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors
taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges
Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The
courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews.
In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had
laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with
some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved
ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

~~~
KozmoNau7
The lesson to be learned is that they did not strike down the fascists hard
enough, while they still could.

Fascism must be met at all time with hard, Swift and decisive opposition,
violent if necessary. There must be no tolerance for ideologies built on
intolerance.

~~~
Fins
And who will decide what is not to be tolerated?

~~~
KozmoNau7
Intolerance towards others will not be tolerated. Simple.

~~~
Fins
So while you are intolerant to Nazis (who you will define yourself) will you
be making an exception for yourself, or will you not tolerate your own
intolerance to wrongthink?

~~~
KozmoNau7
That discussion has been had so many times, it's not even funny. Of course you
should not tolerate intolerance, that's not even up for discussion anymore.

And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to
attack them for _acts_ , not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling
for violence and persecution against people is an _act_ , not a thought.

~~~
js8
"Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people
is an act, not a thought."

I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot
we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act.

On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that
this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as
if it had a moral agency. So which is it?

~~~
KozmoNau7
Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities.
This has been shown again and again throughout human history.

If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are
tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable
acceptance of intolerant acts.

~~~
js8
> Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities.

What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence
as being not responsible for their own actions?

Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against
person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C.

I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why
persecute (with violence) the person A. Person B is morally responsible for
their own action (we don't absolve people of murder even if someone suggests
to them that they should murder someone). And I also agree that we should
speak out against A's suggestion of violence.

So you can see, I am not advocating tacit tolerance of any intolerant acts,
and yet disagree with your suggestion of persecution of person A (actually,
not in all situations, but I disagree with it in general).

~~~
KozmoNau7
If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have
incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they
are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to
commit acts of violence on person C.

Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we
must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we
have to act!"), that should also be dealt with, rather harshly.

Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You
can say exactly what you want, and neither the government nor anyone else can
legally stop you from doing so. But they _can_ very much hold you accountable
for the consequences of what you say, and the manner in which you said it (eg.
publicly, to a large crowd of angry people).

~~~
js8
"then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded
person B to commit acts of violence on person C"

If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a
different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and
extortion.

I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own
will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no
person B? Should we punish person A regardless?

"Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

I strongly disagree, and I think it's misunderstanding of concept of free
speech. The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free.

People often give an example of somebody saying something to their employer
and the employer firing them for that. This is a limitation of free speech.

Before making that argument, you should consider that in the communist regimes
(such in Czech Republic), dissidents were often suppressed by being fired from
their job. You're effectively saying that it was morally acceptable, and I
disagree.

~~~
KozmoNau7
>"I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their
own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no
person B? Should we punish person A regardless?"

That is ideally for the courts to decide, whether A's utterances and calls for
action can reasonably be said to have incited B's actions. Obviously B bears
the primary responsibility, but A can also be culpable, especially if they
have knowledge that their words are very likely to spur people like B into
action.

>"The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free."

No. Even in the US ("LAND OF THE FREE RAH RAH RAH HOME OF THE BRAVE U S A U S
A U S A"), freedom of speech is not absolute. There are laws against libel and
slander, for good reason.

If you walk up to your employer and call them a fascist limp-dicked low-paying
money-grubbing shitstain, what do you think will happen? Do you think you'll
just keep your job, keep working as if nothing happened? Do you think they'll
just ignore that and act as if nothing had happened?

What if you do the same thing by posting it publicly on the internet or in a
newspaper? Do you expect there to be no consequences?

In other words, freedom of speech means that you are free to express yourself,
with no threat of censorship. It does _not_ absolve you from responsibility
for what you said. Stand by what you say, take responsibility.

------
virmundi
I wonder, out loud to all you HN lawyers, if not officially supporting an EU
country gets you out of EU law. If a site offers no official language support,
does it have to follow Germany's law simply because a German saw it?

~~~
pimmen
They have to follow German law because they have German users, German
customers (German companies buying ads), use German infrastructure, German
marketing and German offices housing German employees.

If they would like to turn their back to an 80 million people market, sure.
However, if this becomes the EU standard, it jumps up to a market of almost
500 million people. Hard to turn that down.

~~~
virmundi
If they have users, but transact everything in Dollars and only host out of
the US, does Germany have claim to dictate terms? For example if Germans come
to America and buy things, the German government has little control to exert
power.

~~~
pimmen
You're correct, but that's not the case. They host all across the EU (and have
special agreements with the local governments about power supply for example),
have employees all across the EU, accept Euros as payment and wouldn't want it
any other way. If they didn't, it would be much harder for them to stay
competitive in the EU. If they stop they would negatively impact the
experience for their users and customers in Germany, meaning losses of revenue
from that market and the risk of being overtaken.

------
Andre_Wanglin
Is hate never justifiable?

~~~
KozmoNau7
You can hate as much as you want, in private. Germans are very adamant about
the protection of privacy.

The problem starts if you go around in public, making hateful speeches that
incite violence.

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
That sounds like a great way to protect those who commit acts worthy of hate
from any public remonstration.

~~~
KozmoNau7
You are absolutely and perfectly allowed to speak out in public against such
people. But you must be prepared to take responsibility if your speech is
worded to spur people into violent action and to incite hateful action.

The court of public opinion is notoriously fickle. Rousing hate in the masses
is not a reliable tactic, and often backfires.

------
ihsw2
And yet the hammer and sickle are regarded as symbols of freedom and Marxism
is regarded as a movement to empower the oppressed. How revolting. Adherents
to Communist ideology have killed many millions more than Nazis ever dreamed
of and caused untold amounts of devastation over the past century.

~~~
lopmotr
Not only that, but communism is still an ongoing danger, unlike Nazism.
Venezuela just experienced it. Zimbabwe a decade before, and now South Africa
is slipping closer towards it. It's a real danger to human life but somehow
people celebrate it.

~~~
mayniac
lol, "nazism is not an ongoing danger"

This is amazing, it's like Charlottesville never happened and Bannon never had
the president's ear.

------
im3w1l
Germany acts to clamp down on free speach, learning from its own history of
clamping down on free speech under both the communists and the nazis.

They are even hiring former stasi people to do it.

[http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/17/german-govt-
hires...](http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/17/german-govt-hires-ex-
stasi-agent-patrol-facebook-xenophobic-comments/)

~~~
lopmotr
The didn't have free speech to begin with. People forget Germany, France and
the UK don't have the basic concept of freedom of speech that America does.
You could already go to prison for insulting the wrong groups or supporting
the wrong political party, and people have.

~~~
mayniac
>People forget Germany, France and the UK don't have the basic concept of
freedom of speech that America does

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

~~~
lopmotr
If you read that, you see there are so many exceptions and they're so
subjective (protection of morals?) that it's pretty much not a freedom at all.

