
German MPs vote for new law to fine social media companies over illegal content - mgliwka
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40444354
======
skrebbel
As a European I love to write smug rants on the internet about how our
governments and our political culture are better than those of the US.
However, stuff like this worries me.

We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this
respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree
with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's
more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you
arrested for it". Eg Dutch xenophobe politician Geert Wilders got dragged into
court _twice_! (ridiculous, and also countereffective because guess what it
did for his ratings)

This sort of stuff is much worse, however. Given the 24 hour deadline, the
only way Facebook reasonably can implement this is automation. A computer
program determining whether my post is hate speech or satire? Seriously?
Computers can't even tell the difference between a puppy and a cupcake. Why
does anyone think this is a good idea?

A long time ago I used to hang out on an IRC channel that banned "bad words".
The bot was very enthusiastically tuned with conservative American values.
There was a user called "War^" but "war" was a forbidden word. Talking to him
got you kicked out, mentioning him thrice got you banned.

Obviously, the solution there was simple: leave the IRC channel and never come
back. But I'm not sure people will feel they have the same option for their
favorite social media.

~~~
tmalsburg2
> We need more freedom of speech, not less.

You seem to be very convinced of this. Could you please list one or two
concrete cases where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where
this limitation led to a poor outcome for society? I think this could make
your argument much stronger.

~~~
cr1895
I'm not the OP you're asking, but here's one example where a Dutch man was
jailed for insulting the king:

[http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-
for...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for-
insulting-the-dutch-king/)

edit: more examples from some other European countries
[http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-
joke-7-countries...](http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-
joke-7-countries-where-is-it-a-criminal-offence-to-insult-a-head-of)

~~~
tmalsburg2
While I agree that it's bad to prevent people from speaking poorly about a
king, that's not representative of the kinds of things that the German law is
addressing. As such this is not a very strong example, IMO.

~~~
cr1895
You asked for examples in which free speech was too limited and resulted in a
poor outcome for society. You asked that in response to:

"We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this
respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree
with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's
more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you
arrested for it"."

Therefore my example is germane and quite a clear example given your question.

Here are more examples (again Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Spain):

[http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-
joke-7-countries...](http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-
joke-7-countries-where-is-it-a-criminal-offence-to-insult-a-head-of)

------
nippples
As much as I hate Facebook and I think it's one of the main vectors of all the
social unrest cancer we see metastasizing everywhere in western society
nowadays, this decision is stupid and does only yet more harm to free speech
than actually address any real problem, but serves only to sweep it under the
rug until it explodes in our face.

Of course, most politicians involved in making this happen won't ever have to
deal with one iota of the inconvenience they bestow over their general
population.

~~~
tmalsburg2
Social media are arguably amplifying those "real problems" and regulating them
is therefore a very reasonable thing to do, as it is reasonable to do
something about mosquitoes that are spreading deadly diseases [0] (using this
example because you mentioned vectors as an analogy). I don't think that the
law they passed implies that nothing else will be done to address the
underlying causes of these issues. Suggesting it does is disingenuous.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_control)

~~~
nippples
> I don't think that the law they passed implies that nothing else will be
> done to address the underlying causes of these issues. Suggesting it does is
> disingenuous.

Many politicians, especially in the mainstream, operate on a 'lowest possible
effort' basis to pretend they're giving a damn about their electorate, which
is why so many completely awful laws and trade deals get passed just by giving
it a friendly-sounding name, all while pocketing a hefty 'extra payment' for
their collaboration.

I'll be more surprised to find out that something concrete was done about the
cause of extremism in Europe than to find out that there was a ridiculously
large network of bribed politicians involved in passing this law.

------
Grue3
It wasn't that long ago when they were burning books that didn't conform to
the social norms of the establishment. You'd think Germans would be smarter
than to make the same mistake twice. The social media companies must fight
this law. What if, say, Russian government demands removing any content
promoting homosexuality (as it is currently against Russian law)? This type of
shit will destroy Internet as we know it.

~~~
tmalsburg2
Honestly, comparing this to burning books in the Third Reich is simply showing
that you know very little about history or that you choose to ignore it to
make some simplistic argument for unconditional free speech. The horrible
crimes of the Third Reich shouldn't be invoked so casually.

~~~
pavelludiq
There is no such thing as conditional free speech.

~~~
mirimir
Well, there are circumstances like yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But
otherwise, I agree.

~~~
Asooka
Even in that case, I'd argue that you're penalised not for the speech itself,
but because it was used in a premediated way that caused concrete physical
harm to people. As in, you're free to carry a gun, but you're not free to fire
at people without good reason. And even then you're free (as in unrestrained)
to fire at whoever you like, but there are consequences. Contrast that with
automatic censorship on the internet which is like having a gun that will not
fire at certain people, period, and the bullets themselves would change
trajectory to not hit anyone the algorithm deems "not worthy of being shot".

~~~
tremon
And how is tweeting e.g. that "$minority_group is the root of all evil and
should be shot on sight" not a "premeditated way [of speech] that caused
concrete physical harm to people"?

------
theBobBob
I really don't think that it should be a social media company's responsibility
to police the internet. If a person posts something illegal, I think it should
be that person that should be punished and it should be the job of the
government/police/courts to do so. The social media company could then remove
the content after that.

~~~
tmalsburg2
I guess that's a valid stand point, but to be fair, analogous regulations are
very common for other businesses, especially in the US. For example, bars have
to make sure that their patrons do not smoke and that they have legal age.
There are thousands of these regulations and they are rarely perceived as
attacks on basic freedoms but rather seen as common sense. What is different
about internet companies that they should not have the responsibility to
enforce such rules on their premises?

~~~
mirimir
It's one thing to "enforce such rules on their premises", as China does. But
for each nation to impose its laws on the entire Internet? That's just insane.
And won't end well.

~~~
DanBC
But you seem to be saying it's okay for US companies to impose the extremist
version of freedom of speech that the US has on other nations.

And that's not going to end well.

~~~
mirimir
I'm arguing for more freedom of speech than the US has.

------
akerro
>must take down posts containing hate speech or other criminal material within
24 hours

Maybe this will convince facebook to remove decapitation videos.

~~~
josefx
After 24 hours those are old news anyway, just flag it for automatic removal
after 23 hours and 59 minutes.

------
grx
Aside from the censorship debate, I still wonder what measures the German
government has to enforce these fines. None of the discussed big companies are
settled in Germany, but are regulated under European law. Where is the
connection? Does a EU member have the capability to use EU regulators to
enforce fines based on state law?

~~~
arethuza
I would expect any large company to have a subsidiary legal entity in each
country it operates, even if just a sales office - they are operating in the
local legal environment (in this case Germany).

e.g. Here is the UK subsidiary of Facebook - I'd expect there to be a German
equivalent:

[https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310)

~~~
mirimir
Well, then they should shut down that German one, no?

And move all operations out of Germany.

Maybe blacklist all German IPs, just for jolly ;)

Edit: Also, Facebook does have a Tor onion gateway. For users in places that
block access. That'd work as well for Germans as well as Chinese etc.

~~~
arethuza
And lose a potentially valuable market - yes they could do that.

~~~
mirimir
I wonder who would back down first.

At some point, Internet-based firms will need to take a stand on this.
Otherwise, they'll just get pecked to death.

------
wyager
> sites with more that two million users in Germany must take down posts
> containing hate speech or other criminal material within 24 hours.

Censorship and fines galore. Just this week: a €2.4B fine from the EU for
Google's integrated shopping view. A Canadian ruling stating that Google had
to enforce Canadian censorship worldwide. And now, huge fines for content that
the German government finds objectionable.

How long before google, Facebook, etc. retreat to the US entirely (or even to
some liberal island nation)? Sooner or later, the economic benefit of a data
company having a physical presence somewhere is outweighed by the cost of
overbearing censorship laws. Maybe it's time for the Sultanate of Kinakuta to
become a reality.

Google and Facebook should start investing heavily in anti-censorship
technology a la Tor and I2P. Sadly, I fear that this may soon become necessary
in "liberal" nations like Germany. It's already necessary in the U.K., with
draconian anti-pornography and anti-cryptography laws.

~~~
m12k
As much as I'd be impressed if Europe managed to pull a China and replace the
unicorns from SV with homegrown (and tax-paying) alternatives, I doubt that's
ever going to happen. Google and FB have such ridiculously high profit margins
that this is still just nibbling at the edges of it.

~~~
wyager
€2.4B is a very large chunk of Google's annual profit. How much do these
companies gain from having a legally vulnerable physical presence in the EU?
I'd guess not more than a few billion dollars a year. The primary benefits are
hiring, taxes, and maybe some CDN improvements, but those can be worked
around.

~~~
germanier
The primary benefit is having an entity to bill their customers (i.e.
advertisers). And no, the shop next door will never go through the hassle to
wire money to the US (which can be seized in transfer anyway).

~~~
wyager
Great, this opens up an opportunity for Bitcoin transfers to Kinakuta.

------
thinkloop
Hypothetically speaking, if Facebook didn't want to comply, and they shutdown
any German entities that could be exposed to fines, what would Germany's next
move be? To block Facebook completely from the country?

------
amelius
Somebody or some group might abuse this law with the intent to bring Facebook
down.

------
odiroot
What the heck is happening to this thread?

The comments disappear before I manage to answer to them.

What sort of Soviet-alike censorship is that?

~~~
arethuza
It could be the author of comments deleting them - I quite often delete
comments a few moments after posting them.

~~~
quakenul
To add to that, I usually do so because somebody beat me to what I wanted to
say. As was the case in this thread.

------
eukara
Social media sites != open internet.

Before you make any statements about his this could potentially suppress
voices and opinions, you can always make your own site. Even if the government
did not interfere with these sites, the sites themselves totally have the
right to regulate everything that's being posted. This is only to encourage
this because companies like facebook didn't seem to give much of a damn about
regulation.

~~~
cJ0th
> Before you make any statements about his this could potentially suppress
> voices and opinions, you can always make your own site.

Social media allows you to use a pseudonym which makes it possible to share an
opinion (and thus, to a tiny extend, shape society) without the people who
know you in "real life" learning about it. If you have a personal website you
have, by German law, to publish your name and address on this website. As a
result, people can google what you write.

So if you want to discuss an opinion that people you interact with in real
life don't accept you have to accept that they could find your posts. This,
naturally, could have a chilling effect leading to you not writing about
issues you care about.

