Spiral Insanity
Banned
I like it.
Good, Germany seems to be the only country on the planet that understands how to balance free speech with the need to suppress hateful propaganda that leads to movements like the alt-right.
I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
So why hasn't that happened in the decades these laws have already existed? That slope doesn't appear that slippery.I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
*chuckles* But sirs, what if the bad guys say that you are hate speech? *sits down and swills his brandy, knowing he has won*
People continue to not understand what Freedom of Speech grants.
The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Can't really get behind this tbh.
Would you be comfortable with a Trump-appointed SCOTUS deciding who's covered by these laws?
That's just a list of free speech restrictions that are already in place in various countries, not a prescription for what should actually be law. I think several of those restrictions are varying degrees of bullshit (right to be forgotten, pornography, obscenity).
Private entities and private spaces, however, are largely not required to protect your speech, and the first amendment does not protect what you sayonly your right to speak.
...when you leave a comment on a company's Facebook page, post to a Reddit thread, or tweet your grievances, you're speaking in privately owned spaces. This means you should have no expectation that your speech is somehow protected beyond that service's terms of use. That said, when it comes to freedom of speech on the internet, there are two truths that are almost universal:
Most spaces on the internet are privately owned, and have no obligation to allow you to speak freely in their space. Whether it's Facebook removing content that violates its own terms of service, a blog owner deleting a comment they find offensive, or a big company deleting user posts from its Facebook page, your speech may be censored, but you have no first amendment right to free speech in those places. This includes our discussions on Lifehackerwe've always held our community up to high standards, and if you start a discussion we find isn't up to those standards, we reserve our right to dismiss it.
Most companies know it's in their own best interest to allow you to speak freely on their platforms. When you hear any company say "we support/stand for freedom of speech," what they really mean is that by honoring your freedom of speech, they know they can successfully build a community, attract users, attract views, attract advertisers, and make money. They may truly value free speech, don't get us wrong, and most companies know that success means taking the bad with the good, but that doesn't make it your right. They just know it's in their best interest to say they value it, and act accordingly
But also:
No, this is the government extending public laws into the digital space, something that should be self-evident in its obviousness.What does that have to do with the subject at hand? This is a thread about government dictating what speech can be allowed on social media platforms. Everyone knows about the xkcd comic, but that doesn't apply here.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? This is a thread about government dictating what speech can be allowed on social media platforms. Everyone knows about the xkcd comic, but that doesn't apply here.
That's not how it works and it's a dumb argument that has been proven wrong over and over.This is a big blow for freedom of speech. It doesn't stop extreme beliefs, just makes it harder to know which assholes harbour them.
You're wrong.I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? This is a thread about government dictating what speech can be allowed on social media platforms. Everyone knows about the xkcd comic, but that doesn't apply here.
The US has a really flawed view on freedom of speech which is very unfortunate.
But as stated numerous times before in this thread, this is not changing any existing laws on hate speech and freedom of speech, it just makes sure that social media companies are made responsible if their services are used to share this shit.
No, this is the government extending public laws into the digital space, something that should be self-evident in its obviousness.
Obviously, the hate speech laws were already in place and Germany is well within their rights to enforce them with regards to their citizens, but I have a fundamental problem with the laws to begin with.
So your solution against, e.g., cyberbullying would be "grow a thicker skin"? Because I don't see an alternative if you think laws against this shouldn't be a thing.Can't really get behind this tbh. Obviously, the hate speech laws were already in place and Germany is well within their rights to enforce them with regards to their citizens, but I have a fundamental problem with the laws to begin with.
So your solution against cyberbullying would be "grow a thicker skin"? Because I don't see an alternative if you think laws against this shouldn't be a thing.
I think social media companies should do a better of moderation (and empowering users to self-moderate) on their platforms. I also think that many forms of cyberbullying are already covered by existing death threat and harassment laws. Targeted harassment is a separate issue from generalized hate speech.
But that's what hate speech is. You can't do hate speech here in UK or you'll get dealt with the authorities. And plenty have.I'm talking more about the ability to espouse Nazi ideology or the like. Of course incitements to violence aren't protected in most cases anywhere.
They've failed on their target which is why legal action has to follow.I think social media companies should do a better of moderation (and empowering users to self-moderate) on their platforms. I also think that many forms of cyberbullying are already covered by existing death threat and harassment laws. Targeted harassment is a separate issue from generalized hate speech.
So Facebook and Twitter are citinzens now?This is why I amended my original post to say
That's exactly what the german goverment said last year. That's why they gave social media companies a deadline until early this year to start and actually improve moderation and follow german law. (German source)
Social media companies did not improve their moderation or started following german law. That's why the goverment had to act now.
So Facebook and Twitter are citinzens now?
I think social media companies should do a better of moderation (and empowering users to self-moderate) on their platforms. I also think that many forms of cyberbullying are already covered by existing death threat and harassment laws. Targeted harassment is a separate issue from generalized hate speech.
"Free speech" isnt "Freedom of consequence". In this case, you`re still allowed to say whatever you want, just know that some things will be punishable by law.
I mean, on the one hand, I get the wish that you shouldn't be restrained by the lowest common denominator and only be able to discuss what China deems okay on Facebook.The difference being that I'm not advocating that any specific government dictate what standards should be enforced by platforms. I think the more important consideration at hand here is the potential for the erosion international communication that happens once individual nations get more involved in the game of determining appropriate content. I don't want arbitrary nations to be empowered to arbitrarily affect international services I enjoy (going far beyond typical shithead speech here).
I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
i don't follow your logic here. so if i go out and smoke some weed on the sidewalk and get arrested, i still have the freedom to smoke weed on the sidewalk ... just not without getting arrested?
I mean, on the one hand, I get the wish that you shouldn't be restrained by the lowest common denominator and only be able to discuss what China deems okay on Facebook.
On the other hand, big, international companies being above the law of democracies strikes me as more than a bit iffy.
Besides, Europeans are already adhearing to weird American customs about modesty on Facebook, whether they want to or not. So what you describe is already happening.
2014 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
2015 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
2016 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
2017 - Social media companies should do a better job of moderation.
Established news organizations in the states should be fined for publishing fake news. I also think the media should be categorical to defend the freedom of opinion for journalists, but it should be obvious. If a piece is satire, then it should be labeled as such. if it is factual then it needs to be sourced and sound. Just like we have labels of restrictions on on games and films, the same needs to happen to the media.
[...]
This is not a thing that happens in countries with hate speech laws. It's just not. Can you give me an example? We have hate speech laws back home in Mexico and also here in Japan - which means I've never been to a "free speech country", lol. I'm not seeing any signs of this slippery slope that will lead us to get jail time for saying we prefer chocolate over strawberry.I don't agree. Only a matter of time until those laws shift to redefine hate speech over time. Rather not. Goof for Germany though. Let them do them. Just don't wanna see that here.
You're aware that the leadership of these companies is much more arbitrarily selected than democratically elected governments and a lot less accountable, right?The difference being that I'm not advocating that any specific government dictate what standards should be enforced by platforms. I think the more important consideration at hand here is the potential for the erosion international communication that happens once individual nations get more involved in the game of determining appropriate content. I don't want arbitrary nations to be empowered to arbitrarily affect international services I enjoy (going far beyond typical shithead speech here).
I dont think something like cyber bullying falls under hate speech.So your solution against, e.g., cyberbullying would be "grow a thicker skin"? Because I don't see an alternative if you think laws against this shouldn't be a thing.
Fining for fake news is the wrong approach. Those companies are well funded. They should be forced, if they reported fake news, to broadcast the clarification of the fake news as long and at the same time slots. That way you can't hide a 2 sentence apology in the middle of the night while spouting bullshit all day and just eating the fine.
True, but I wouldn't expect any less of a private entity.You're aware that the leadership of these companies is much more arbitrarily selected than democratically elected governments and a lot less accountable, right?
I think my above post my clear up my position better. I don't think companies should be free to ignore the laws of the countries they operate in, just that individual governments exerting increased control over the content of international communities tends to have worse outcomes for the users.The reverse of your scenario of said companies disregarding national jurisdiction is much more likely and a lot scarier as well. Your concern seems to be just about your fundamental disagreement with the restrictions to speech. The rest is conjecture at best.
In this specific case, it's not too much of an issue since the enforcement is largely just taking down offending posts made by Germans, but when it comes to enforcement of larger issues (like, for example, Russia's LGBTQ+ "propaganda" laws) it either forces the creation of internet ghettos a la Great Firewall or it starts affecting international users as companies enforce site-wide regulations to address local concerns.
I'm not a fan of my country's lamer cultural exports, but Facebook being lame of their own volition is a far cry from them being forced to do so (this is the usual "it's a private platform" position at play).
I never said they were doing a good job.