
If Trump kicks out Twitter, there's always Germany - throwaway888abc
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-germany/if-trump-kicks-out-twitter-theres-always-germany-idUSKBN2342CM
======
codesuela
It is impossible to run anything like Twitter in Germany without being sued
into oblivion for defamation etc and get struck with criminal charges for
something a user posted. Germanys equivalent of cease and desist letters
(Abmahnungen) make running a big site with user generated content very
unattractive.

~~~
llcoolv
Or accidentally trigger a three-strike rule or infringe some odd sentence in
the 300k pages of regulations that concern your business... Europe is not
going to have a big tech company (or even mid-sized for that matter) until
this legal approach changes in an extreme way.

------
tasubotadas
Germany is a startup-friendly? In addition to the free speech issues mentioned
above, it makes me giggle a bit when I take a look at their 45% tax rate.

On the other hand, Ireland does look like a sweet destination. Since they
probably already have an office there (double Dutch sandwitch?), it wouldn't
even be hard to do.

Dreams aside, probably no company is stupid enough to abandon a 330M big
market that has plenty of cash to spend.

------
fakwandi_priv
Has there been a thread on HN that discusses the actual EO?

Let's for the sake of discussion ignore that it's some other political
figurehead implementing this law, would it be acceptable? Is twitter a news
outlet by editing or annotating a persons message and is it correct to say
these companies are forming a monopoly/cartel on free speech. Does twitter's
size and impact on the general populace mean it needs different rules to
operate?

I'm much more interested in the stances and opinions of people regarding the
status quo around social media and their function to the people and much less
interested in the drama that ensues every time something leaves trump's mouth.

~~~
krapp
> Has there been a thread on HN that discusses the actual EO?

900+ comments and counting[0].

[0][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161)

------
Gravityloss
There is a natural ebb and flow to societies and civilizations. Things were
happening in Athens, Miletos, Alexandria, Baghdad - the intellectual centers
of gravity changed over time as rulers had various levels of enlightenment,
religious freedom varied etc.

------
sschueller
Just a reminder, the 1st Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1]

Private entities can do what they want.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
quantummkv
Freedom of Speech does not protect you from the consequences of said free
speech.

> Private entities can do what they want.

Private entities can also get sued into oblivion by other private entities
that believe they were wronged. Section 230 prevents that in exchange of some
conditions and concessions as long as they are followed.

If twitter wants the freedom to do what they want, they will also have to
accept the freedom to get sued into oblivion.

------
LandR
Why is this flagged?

------
eddieoz
For sure there are better jurisdictions who would receive them very well.

------
mytailorisrich
The key and broader issue here is that Twitter has become a global channel for
official governmental communication.

As such Twitter should come up with a clear and transparent policy on this
(have they?). It's not specific to Trump.

IMHO, tweets by heads of states should not be subjected to any moderation, and
perhaps replies should not be allowed.

Now, what someone tweets in one country may be an offence in another country
so it is possible that Twitter might still have to make certain tweets by
heads of states unavailable in some other countries.

This is not a simple issue but it will only grow.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Why use a medium like twitter at all when replies aren't allowed? That would
be classical unidirectional top down broadcast.

Can surf the *.gov for that, or watch tv.

Or ist that the full spectrum dominance across all channels?

MLM?

~~~
mytailorisrich
Replies to official tweets don't really serve any purpose apart from creating
a buzz or polemic, i.e. to spread in a viral way but rarely for constructive
reasons.

Those tweets are unidirectional top down broadcasts in practice but they reach
many more people than the official government website and they do it almost
instantly.

------
bhaak
Just be prepared to throw out any tweet that comes close to Holocaust denial
or uses Nazi symbols. Well, that's actually not so bad IMO but the American
style "free speech" advocates would be foaming.

What does "relocate" include? I mean, Twitter's infrastructure is not tight to
the US and will already be spread all over the globe. So, only the address of
the HQ?

------
jumbopapa
> “Here you are free to criticize the government as well as to fight fake
> news. We have a great startup and tech ecosystem, your company would be a
> perfect fit and I will open any doors for you!”

As if that's not the case in the US? Trump's threats don't hold any water and,
if we're being honest, our legal restrictions on speech are less stringent
than Germany's.

~~~
nailer
The US's restrictions on speech are indeed less stringent than in Germany.

However representatives could make a law that says communication platforms
deemed to be significant parts of political communication need to not control
the conversation.

~~~
pnako
The mood is going entirely in the other direction in Europe though, i.e. they
want platforms to police speech even more. That's certainly true in Germany,
also in France, and I'm sure other European countries.

There is no equivalent to the US when it comes to freedom of speech.

~~~
nailer
We agree with each other. I think you may have accidentally misread the
comment you're replying to.

~~~
pnako
Yes, it was not clear which representatives you were talking about.

~~~
nailer
Ah sorry, I should have specified House of Representatives

------
quantummkv
Leaving aside all the free speech and German laws, does anyone really believe
that Germany or any European nation aside from Russia will harbor anyone in
the cross-hairs of the current US establishment? Angering the US will
potentially leave the door wide open for Uncle Putin for the Rush B(erlin).

No European country lifted a single finger in the defense of Snowden or
Assange when they were in the cross-hairs of the US. No one will do it for
twitter, especially when they could just let twitter die and move in to fill
the void themselves.

------
seemslegit
God I love the dunning-kruger view of Germany as the last bastion of internet
liberty, it's utterly wrong - Germany has so many laws restricting online
speech that you (and the service hosting your content) can be sued just for
mentioning someone by name in a disparaging context, nothing like the CDA 230
protections exists there in the first place.

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that despite having some of the best hackers in
the world come from it Germany has zero world-scale content platforms ?

~~~
ForHackernews
Germany strongly respects individual privacy (perhaps because many Germans
remember the Gestapo) but they don't have the same notions of free speech
rights that Americans do.

~~~
luckylion
> Germany strongly respects individual privacy

Citation needed. Germany is a mess on that topic. On the one hand, we have
ridiculous things like "police stations can't have cameras monitoring the
sidewalk next to them because of privacy concerns", on the other hand we're
obligated by law to inform the government when we move (with heavy fines if
you do not comply immediately), and the data will be shared with our state
media so they can collect their its-not-a-tax-media-tax, and political parties
so they can send you ads (at least you can reject this, but it's opt-out, not
opt-in).

As with many things in Germany, many things about privacy are missing the
forest for the trees. We'll enforce with furious diligence things that are
irrelevant, while you can't buy SIM cards anonymously and they're pushing for
laws that might outlaw VPN services, there are regular pushes for removing
"anonymity" from the internet etc.

~~~
Gwypaas
I feel this is a big difference between the US and Europe in many cases with
the difference being the US system is scared to actually face the questions.
It's all conventions and traditions that has become culture and unchangeable,
with some arcane bench of judges making modern interpretations on 1700's
thoughts, sometimes for the better, sometimes separate but equal. Ridiculous
to trust an institution like that to make progress in a society.

This leading to privacy by mostly convention, but then everyone builds systems
to circumvent it in inefficient ways. I.e. SSN and similar.

Instead of simply acknowledging that the government is going to get that
information no matter what, and it is a requirement to actually govern a
modern society. Which then forces you to have to face the discussion regarding
what it entails and limit it's uses.

~~~
luckylion
> Ridiculous to trust an institution like that to make progress in a society.

Imho "making progress" is not the task of any court. Their job is to apply the
laws to cases; want to make progress towards some goal? Change the laws,
change the constitution.

> Which then forces you to have to face the discussion regarding what it
> entails and limit it's uses.

Which, of course, isn't happening. We have accepted (as if anybody ever asked
us) that it's required to govern a "modern society", and now we have the
police tapping whatever info source they can get away with. The courts will,
in some cases at least, rule that they may not (but we don't have "fruit of
the poisonous tree", so if they illegally search your house, they may still
use whatever they find against you), but they're normalizing the overreach.

And it's not a political-side-thing either. The conservatives want to use it
to fight islamic terrorists and the last three remaining communist
revolutionaries, the progressives want to use it to fight racism, sexism and
conservatives. Our main stream media (which is _much_ more bundled up than in
the US or UK) will generally urge for respecting privacy, but will also
generally falter in any crisis and get in line. There are very few private
NGOs that are holding the state's feet to the fire.

Setting things up so you can "govern a modern society" efficiently isn't all
good. I'd take an inefficient administration that keeps its nose out of my
business over an efficient administration any day.

------
thdrdt
Trump is not going to kick out Twitter.

Trump is a smart man. He has trouble handling the coronavirus so the best
thing he can do is shift focus.

I think this article adds nothing. In fact, if you take a closer look it just
says: 'Trump threatened to close Twitter and Thomas Jarzombek invites Twitter
to Berlin.'.

------
jotm
A joke, indeed, seeing as German and other European politicians want the same
thing as Trump, for platforms to moderate the users' content.

~~~
llcoolv
Trump wants the oppsite actually - platforms not to moderate it. Not that it
is any of his business this way or the other.

~~~
krapp
More to the point - when the only options for a platform hosting any user
provided content are to shut down to avoid liability or not moderate anything,
platforms choosing the latter will become overwhelmed with extremist and
right-wing speech, pushing the Overton window towards the cultural
normalization of alt-right and white supremacist ideology.

Which is the _actual_ goal.

~~~
pnako
Why do you think they would become overwhelmed with this type of content in
particular?

~~~
krapp
Show me an unmoderated forum, or any "free speech" alternative forum where
that hasn't become the case.

~~~
pnako
If most places ban a certain type of content, it's likely that you will find
more of that content in the few places where it's allowed.

I'm questioning the idea that if all platforms were to be less restrictive,
that particular type of content would become "overwhelming".

Some communities are more active online than others but generally I would
expect the distribution of opinions expressed online to reflect the actual
distribution of opinions actually held by the population.

~~~
krapp
>I would expect the distribution of opinions expressed online to reflect the
actual distribution of opinions actually held by the population.

You're assuming most people are tolerant of racist and bigoted content and
don't mind seeing a constant stream of it, but when the Nazis show up, their
discourse tends to drive everyone else away if they aren't banned. That's why
they tend to take over communities where, _in theory_ all sorts of opinions
are welcome.

~~~
pnako
It might be true on some platforms like Facebook, where your network tends to
be made up of family and colleagues (so you can't really avoid what your uncle
might have to say), but I don't think it's true on social media websites like
reddit or twitter, where you can choose which content you follow (subreddit,
following certain users, etc.)

------
llcoolv
Yeah, massive taxes on all fronts (employment, corporate & VAT) accompanied by
insane beuracracy, GDPR and tons of other pointless regulations... My
favourite would be "the right to be forgotten", which is probably 20x more
outrageous than Trump's current tantrum.

Surely Twitter would be better off in Germany, that's why today's Europe's
literally full of thriving tech giants :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

