the bigger picture here is, Trump marks just how serious the decline of the USA and its people have been the last decade or two
Sounds like forum guidelines to me and i don’t see any problem with the rules, if everybody followed this rules the internet would be a much better place than it is now.
You don’t have any problem with limiting free speech/opinion police on the internet?
Then there’s also the possibilities of false positives. Censoring opinions which aren’t ‘offensive’, but taken down by Facebook just to be safe, to avoid a fine.
Says nothing about this here, this rules is not against free speech or opinions:
(But where did you find this? I can’t find this rules )
propaganda or symbols of anticonstitutional organizations
Preparation for violence endangering the state, or publishing instructions for how to do so
Insulting the federal president, the state, its symbols, or part of the government (I expect that this will make the majority of questionable decisions, as the permissions for satire allows a lot here before it veers into the illegal).
Treasonous forgery (i.e. forgery that harms the state’s relation to other states)
Public calls for criminal offenses
Disrupting the peace by threatening criminal offenses
Forming a criminal group
Showing cruel/inhumane violence against people, while also glorifying it or belittling it
rewarding, or approving of criminal offenses (in the latter case, in a way suitable to disrupt the peace)
Insulting religions or worldviews in a manner suitable to disrupt the peace
Distributing child porn, or porn to children, or porn to the general public without the necessary controls
Insult, slander and libel
Threatening with a criminal offense
forging data relevant to legal dealings
Then there’s the fact that there are no real guidelines for the private companies, just vague terms for companies like facebook.
What private companies are we talking about? I thought this new law would include all social media, like Facebook,Twitter, Youtube etc, Youtube should definitive do a cleanup.
And the rules you quoted dosn’t appear vauge to me.
"The new rules are supposed to drastically reduce the number of posts containing hate speech, fake news and terror propaganda on social media. In January and February 2017, Youtube deleted 90 percent of hate speech videos reported by users - but Twitter only deleted one percent. Facebook did a little better at 39 percent. "
Looks like Twitter have a job to do.
Every social media platform that has more than 2 million users will have to apply this law in Germany, like Twitter, youtube, etc. They, as private companies, will need to censor the ‘offensive speech’.
What constitutes as ‘insulting religions or worldviews’?
When someone says Religion x is ‘shit’. That should be censored according to you?
I’m pretty sure a comment like that would be flagged in a forum, it’s okay to dislike a religion and what you think about the religion is your thoughts to have, but writing it in a forum or in a other social media is in my opinion wrong.
But where did you find all this rules, from what i have read, the new law is about this:
German lawmakers have approved a controversial law that would impose high fines on social media companies like Facebook, Twitter or YouTube for failing to swiftly delete posts deemed to exhibit hate speech.
Under the new legislation, social media companies have 24 hours to remove posts that obviously violate German law and have been reported by other users. In cases that are more ambiguous, Facebook and other sites have seven days to deal with the offending post. If they don’t comply with the new legislation, the companies could face a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57.1 million).
The new rules are supposed to drastically reduce the number of posts containing hate speech, fake news and terror propaganda on social media. In January and February 2017, Youtube deleted 90 percent of hate speech videos reported by users - but Twitter only deleted one percent. Facebook did a little better at 39 percent.
Guess that’s where we differ. Opinions shouldn’t be censored.
Those are the items the social media companies have to delete, i.e. censor, to avoid fines. It’s mentioned in the proposed law.
But saying a religion is shit or other mean words is not an opinion, it is just an insult. Instead you could say why you don’t like it and discuss it, a comment about something is shit isn’t going to help anybody and is just a useless comment in my opinion.
I have been member here over a year and i have never used the word shit or other swearing, because it dosent going to help anybody, if i’m angry with something i rather explain it instead of calling it shit.
And yes in the daily live i swear like everybody else, but i don’t think it belongs in the social media, so i avoid doing it.
Definitely not. In the case of Twitter though, they’ve got an absolutely terrible track record when it comes to dealing with abusive behaviour and harrassment of users. I mean, some people still think Milo Yinapolowhothefuckcares was “unfairly” banned from Twitter despite ringleading racist and sexist abuse against a black actress - Which shows you how much they really understand what free speech is. Using a private service to bully, harrass, threaten and intimidate people is not protected speech. Twitter has continuously failed to uphold its terms of service in that sense, seen here -
Digital Blasphemy laws do worry me, though. This needs careful evaluation and review to be honest.
Opinion: “a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”
Why not? If you don’t want to use it, sure, go ahead and don’t. This doesn’t mean others may not do it.
That’s true and i didn’t mean it like that, i just tried to explain the diffrence between a opinion and a useless comment or a insult, i don’t have a problem with people who swears on social media, but i think you would maybe be taken more serious when you are trying to explain the problem rather than say i hate this, this is shit, fuck this etc.
Absolutely.No argument there.
I just don’t think it should be censored, like insulting a religion or whatever.
I haven’t been able to find the detailed laws that @Scourged posted so i don’t know the full extend of this law.
I disagree insults should be censored, like it is here on this forum, social media with forum rules would not harm anybody in my opinion.
It depends how heavy handed they are with it. It seems like this is being mandated by the Government (as in fining the social media company itself if they fail to tackle it efficiently) rather than going after individual comments. So unlike a forum, it isn’t effective, voluntary moderation. Also there’s an argument to be made that Facebook and Twitter are so large now that “censorship” on their platforms is far more likely to have an impact than deleting a post on, say, Hitmanforum.
Just trying to see it from both sides.
So you are for limiting free speech then?
And besides, not every forum has the same guidelines.
No, but i’m for limiting insults.
I don’t agree that insults is about free speech.
So you are limiting free speech if it were up to you …
This is the thing with “free speech warriors” - They’re always defending the lowest common denominator of speech.