Agree on that, it is and will be an huge task to try to control Twitter, Facebook and YouTube like moderators are controlling a furum.
A derogatory term I like to use to describe people who act more upset about the idea of racists/sexists/bigots/nazis etc having their “opinions censored” than they do about the fact racists/sexists/bigots/nazis etc are being racists/sexists/bigots/nazis etc.
And don’t tell me not to use that term or you’ll be violating my right to free speech!!!
You’re the first one to bring up racism/sexism, etc. We weren’t even talking about that stuff.
No we wasn’t, but @Quinn just wanted to give an example of what he meant when he wrote this:
Since you asked what it meant.
This is not a new law, this is pretty old actually. All this changes is making social media act according to the already existent law. If they don’t want to, they are free to stop operating in Germany. The law didn’t magically make Germany a dictatorial wasteland.
Funnily enough, the people complaining about are “much freedom of speech” people that really only give a shit about saying racist/bigoted stuff, and yet haven’t done shit about actual Orwellian stuff like the motherfucking Patriot Act (hilariously, I bet they thought something with Patriot in the name couldn’t possible be bad) or the NSA fucking illegally spying on citizens.
Is posting fake news illegal in Germany?
This is my take on this little sentence that everyone uses now because Trump said it… You do realize that for news to be news they have to be recent, factual and objective do you not? Fake news does not exist because information that is not factual nor objective is not news.
Would that make it illegal? Of course not (that I know of). But they would not be news anyway.
Going to repost something I said earlier in this thread because it’s somewhat relevant to the topic of “fake news”:
I do not mean to be more of a dick than I usually am, but that phrase was from my 4th grade teacher when she was explaining the media during our social sciences class. I am a bit impressed no one brought it up before.
There isn’t a single actual line about fake news in the law so you tell me since you obviously haven’t done much research. The only kind of “fake news” involved in this law are cases of libel/slander. In which case, I’m sorry to tell you, that’s illegal in every single first world country already.
Interesting reading about fake news here:
“In the end, the law can’t protect you from fake news. Get your news from sources that you know are reputable, do your research, and read beyond the headlines. And, if you find out an article is fake, don’t share it. That’s the surest way to stop a false story from spreading.”
Fun fact - On Hitmanforum last year, there was a large argument in which a bunch of more… shall we say, “right wing” members argued that social science wasn’t a real science. So that might partly explain why.
I love this forum man, but it has attracted some very strange characters over the years
I agree with you, but what should we call news like this when it’s fake?
Who is Nils Bildt? Swedish ‘national security advisor’ interviewed by Fox News is a mystery to Swedes
The Dagens Nyheter newspaper reported Friday that neither the Swedish armed forces nor the Foreign Ministry had heard of Bildt. Johan Wiktorin, a fellow at the Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences, took to Twitter to suggest he had not heard of Bildt either.
I’m sorry to inform you that in first world countries we have something as due process.
Besides, how the hell is Facebook to know something is false or not? One party can say it’s true, the other says it’s not.
On the topic of the law, am I wrong to say that they (the law) want social media to remove content that is not illegal but offensive?
It’s pretty easy to tell most of the time to people with functioning brains at least.
And yes, you’re wrong. Everything listed is already illegal in Germany. There is nothing new here, only that social media needs comply with the law.
Social media companies will need to interpret German law and will act like a legal institution. Most likely censoring opinions which aren’t illegal.
There’s definitely a risk involved given the sheer size of Facebook - It’s not really up to a Government to delegate its tasks of surveillance or monitoring of individuals and their opinions to private corporations - But equally, there’s a degree of social responsibility when you have 2 billion users.
Most of the stuff on your list I have little sympathy for anyway. Distributing child pornography, preparing for acts of terrorism, inciting violence, Hate speech, etc. There’s some grey stuff there too (especially where “insulting the head of state” goes) but from the looks of things a lot of stuff is at risk of being snipped due to EU human rights laws.
EU may be a nebulous entity with many levels of bureaucracy but the European Court of Human Rights generally has much more agreeable verdicts than our high court in the UK to be honest.
What’s the difference from what they already do? Facebook is already entitled to delete whatever opinions they may wish. If tomorrow they decided that nobody can say “I hate cats” anymore, they could do that. It’s a privately owned website, you’re not entitled to free speech on their website.
Trump and his supporters are officially beyond parody now.