Once again who decides what is fake news? Who decides what is hateful speech? Is free speech in danger here? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...cial-media-hateful-posts-170405154831106.html Germany seeks to fine social media over hateful posts Draft law wants social networks to remove fake news and abusive posts within a week or face $53m fines. Justice Minister Heiko Maas said that he would seek to push for similar rules at a European level [Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters]Justice Minister Heiko Maas said that he would seek to push for similar rules at a European level [Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters] The German government has approved a draft law to fine social networks up to 50 million euros ($53m) if they fail to remove hateful postings and fake news reported by users quickly, prompting concerns over freedom of expression. Wednesday's move comes as German politicians worry that a proliferation of fake news and racist content, particularly about refugees, could sway public opinion in the run-up to national elections in September. Facebook to fight fake news "There should be just as little tolerance for criminal rabble-rousing on social networks as on the street," Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in a statement. "It is clear that freedom of expression is of huge importance in our vibrant democracy... However, freedom of expression ends where criminal law begins." He also said he would seek to push for similar rules at a European level. Maas said a government survey showed Facebook deleted only 39 percent of content deemed criminal and Twitter only one percent, even though they signed a code of conduct in 2015, including a pledge to delete hate speech within 24 hours. 'Content police' Organisations representing digital companies, consumers and journalists, accused the government of rushing a law to parliament that could damage free speech. "It is the wrong approach to make social networks into a content police," said Volker Tripp, head of the Digital Society Association consumer group. THE STREAM: Germany's new hate speech bill A spokesman for Facebook - which has 29 million active users in Germany, more than one-third of the total population - said the company was working hard to remove illegal content, but expressed concern at the draft law. "This legislation would force private companies, rather than the courts, to become the judges of what is illegal in Germany," he said, adding that Facebook's partner Arvato would employ up to 700 staff in Berlin for "content moderation" by year's end. A spokesman for Twitter declined to comment on the legislation, but said the company had made a number of changes in recent weeks, including adding new filtering options, putting limits on accounts it had identified as engaging in abusive behaviour, and stopping those users from creating new accounts. READ MORE: 2016 and the truth behind fake news Beyond hate speech and fake news, the draft legislation also covers other illegal content, including child pornography and "terrorism-related activity". The draft law still requires approval from parliament. The legislation would give social networks 24 hours to delete or block obviously criminal content. The companies would have seven days to deal with less clear-cut cases, with an obligation to report back to the person who filed the complaint about how they handled the case. Failure to comply could see a company fined up to 50 million euros ($53m), and the company's chief representative in Germany fined up to five million euros ($5.3m).
Who decides what is dangerous driving? Who decides what is slanderous speech? Who decides what is obscene imagery? Arguing against policing crime because it’s difficult to detect strikes me as a dangerous precedent. Free speech is in no more danger here that it is due to the same kind of content being restricted in public speech or print media. Also, free speech is harmed more by false information and criminal intimidation on-line than by any reasonable efforts to combat it.
This is a terrifying precedent. Even more frightening to see it's already being considered for the entirity of the "OWG" EU. If anyone asks why I say "terrifying", it's because hate is subjective. It's an emotion which cannot be detected or quantified in another. No one can therefore deem the words of others "hateful", even if they are. It's akin to legislating against words which an individual or panel of individuals don't personally like. It's literally, thought policing. Absolutely the stuff of dystopian nighares.
Welcome to ZeroNet... https://zeronet.io/ Russia is also moving along the same path. Resign yourself already, that in the future the centralized Internet will not be free. It's sad for us, those who found the absolute freedom of the Internet of the 1990's to accept this, but it will be everywhere. Therefore - get ready to use uncontrolled means of communication.
While you are using a private service (Facebook, Google, PoliticalForum ) you are entirely dependent on the owner of private property. And so you can not dictate your rules to him. Real freedom is possible only in systems without a host - in decentralized systems.ZeroNet, RetroShare, GNU Social, Disapora, FreeNet - there are a lot of them today.They differ in format, ease of use, popularity, opportunities. Today I like ZeroNet the most. It does not provide the level of anonymity appropriate to some alternatives, but it is more familiar, faster, easier to develop, and therefore more active.
True, I was speaking more toward freedom of speech from a personal legal standpoint rather than just what some soon to be failing companies policy is..
