Hacker News Reader

Comment by yorwba | Hacker News Reader

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws.

The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content.

Unfortunately, there are only fines for failing to delete obviously illegal content and none for just deleting everything that is reported and not obviously legal. The law makes provisions for handing over tricky cases to an external agency, but expected the companies to jointly set it up themselves ("regulated self-regulation"), which they didn't do; likely because the people checking reports at such an agency are legally mandated to be competent.

[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html

View on HN

>Unfortunately, there are only fines for failing to delete obviously illegal content

This is not the case, there is no fine for failing to delete obviously illegal content.

This is correct and unfortunately it has been twisted so much through public debate that nobody believes it. The fines are for systematically ignoring that law, not for singular mistakes they make.

Okay, rereading the law, the fine is for not making a process available that guarantees (among other things) that obviously illegal content is deleted or locked within 24 hours unless a different deadline has been negotiated for that specific content.

The effect is the same: the easiest way to implement the requirements in the law is to default to deletion.

But there always was a very clear procedure for reporting illegal content: You visit your local police station and tell them.

And that never went anywhere, because Facebook disobeyed even court orders. They never replied to judges. They never took down posts a court had ordered them to.

The NetzDG is bad law, and will probably be repealed before the Constitution Court rules it unconstitutional.

But it was a reaction to social networks disobeying the law. An overreaction, yes, but a reaction.

I wish it were more commonly known in libertarian and net freedom circles that the pendulum swings both ways. After excesses in one direction it will swing far into the other direction.

Maybe keep that in mind when pursuing extreme goals at any cost, instead of find8ng a middle way that works for everyone.

I think the NetzDG is crap and won‘t stay for long. But I also think that Facebook and Twitter deserve all this pain.

Well, sure, but it didn't go nowhere because a clear procedure for reporting didn't exist, but because the law was not enforced and maybe because some pieces necessary for successful enforcement were missing (which the NetzDG adds, in addition to all the crap that privatizes the law enforcement).

Really, I don't see many people in "net freedom circles" who object to forcing Facebook to delete illegal posts. The objection is rather to (a) deleting stuff instead of prosecuting the perpetrators, (b) hiding (censoring) stuff that's still there, and (c) making parties other than the judicial system responsible for limiting speech.

But, yeah, sure, I don't care about Facebook or Twitter either.

The thing missing for enforcement was Facebook respecting our laws. They simply said „none of our officers is living in Germany, so fuck off“. Now we‘ve added a way to make them hurt. Financially.

And I see virtually everyone in the net freedom circles objecting to FB deleting illegal posts. Because our laws are unjust, you see. Only American laws count.

We really need to teach Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBNB and all those companies some manners and respect for our society.

> Because our laws are unjust, you see.

Maybe you should entertain the idea that they are? It wouldn't be the first time. And what if every country had the same long arm attitude of pushing their opinions on foreign companies?

To people downvoting - you are all a bunch of morons. And e.g. this is an insult that is sanctionable under section 185 of german criminal code as it is mentioned in the new NetzDG act which would make ycombinator liable to 5m€ fine should they fail to remove it under certain circumstances. This is why the law is unjust. Now even though I don't reside in or don't use services from companies residing in Germany I'm strongly encouraged to refrain from pointing out morons amongst you because state actors are strong-arming companies they shouldn't have jurisdiction over.

>> We really need to teach Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBNB and all those companies some manners and respect for our society.

As a German, let me tell you that this sounds absolutely ridiculous, arrogant and hubristic. You want your German Extrawurst. We're not "one society", not everyone agrees with the tons of laws and regulations we have (mostly on account of special pleading and lobbyism).

German users came to Facebook and Twitter first, not the other way around. These are not German companies, they don't need to operate out of Germany, so why should they have to follow our every law? If anything, you'd be "teaching" them not to bother with Germany, because it's too much of a pain in the ass.

I don't like all our laws either (this included) but I accept that as a society we must respect and enforce the laws we democratically choose to enact. Rule of law is a fundamental pillar of society and if that is stopped getting accepted by society at large we are in for a bad time. I don't make the laws and Facebook doesn't either.

If Facebook and co. don't want to operate in Germany, they are free to withdraw from that market. They clearly target Germany and there is a lot of money to be made here. If they want that - fine but please respect that we play by our rules here.

>> I don't like all our laws either (this included) but I accept that as a society we must respect and enforce the laws we democratically choose to enact.

No, we don't. Who taught you this nonsense? In fact, it is our duty as citizens to fight bad laws, no matter if they were "democratically chosen" or not. In Germany, we don't choose laws democratically, either. We elect representatives who may or may not do a good job at legislation, and it's our duty to scrutinize that.

Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law.

> Who taught you this nonsense?

Please don't cross into name-calling and personal attack when posting to HN. This is in the site guidelines. So is the following:

Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> No, we don't. Who taught you this nonsense?

Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state.

Not every state action is good, some are even objectively bad. Of course working against such is a civic duty. But wanting to enforce a law against corporations that interacts with and clearly influences people here is neither ridiculous, nor arrogant or hubristic.

> Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law.

Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever.

We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such.

>> Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state.

What you sounds does not follow from that article - your are mistaking an "ought" for an "is"! If our duty was to do no more than "respect and enforce" laws, how is it that the supreme court declares laws as unconstitutional on a fairly regular basis? An unconstitutional law is best left unenforced and disrespected, is it not?

>> Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever.

No special pleading allowed! Besides, there are countless less extreme examples of "democratic processes" leading to unfavorable outcomes. It's just not a strong argument for anything. Witch burning was a grassroots democratic movement, if you want to look at it that way!

>> We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the previous N laws to "ensure that something like that never happens again" don't, in fact, ensure that "something like that never happens again", then why would the N+1th law make any difference? The same process that created this law can be used to repeal it. Its very existence gives strength to the far right.

It's because of Hitler that Germany has laws against hate speech and proscribes displays of Nazi insignia, is it not?

> You want your German Extrawurst.

Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one!

So, in your opinion, having to follow the laws of a country you visit or that you do business in is somehow illegitimate because it's an Extrawurst? Is it your expectation that the US will apply German law to you when you visit the US?

> These are not German companies, they don't need to operate out of Germany,

Well, true?

> so why should they have to follow our every law?

Because they do operate in Germany?

> If anything, you'd be "teaching" them not to bother with Germany, because it's too much of a pain in the ass.

So, we shouldn't apply laws because that could be teaching people to not bother with Germany? So I suppose you think we shouldn't apply laws at all, then? It's not like Germans couldn't end up learning that they should leave the country if they have to follow laws, is it?

>> Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one!

That isn't an "interpretation of the rule of law", that's a response to the bold statement that "We really need to teach [...] all those companies some manners and respect for our society".

Yes, we can introduce all sorts of stupid laws to make foreign companies do as we please or have them leave. No, we're not "teaching" them "manners and respect" for our society. We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue? Give me a fucking break...

>> Because they do operate in Germany?

Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.

> Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.

Actually, what they did was not legal. Not appearing in court when a judge orders you to is not legal. It just so happens that it's not enforcable when the person ordered to appear happens to be in a different country. In order to limit the negative effects of this illegal behaviour, now more of their behaviour has been made illegal in such a way that if they don't follow those rules, it can actually be enforced.

>> Not appearing in court when a judge orders you to is not legal.

That's not actually true.

> We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue?

I don't see how this was relevant in any way to the discussion. What happened 100 years ago should of course be considered in discussions and in the law-making process today and it should not be forgotten, so that it will not repeat. But it isn't fair to still judge people born in a country where some of their grand(grand)parents did bad things.

I would have no problem with them deciding it‘s not worth the trouble and banning German users.

I have a problem with how they want to make money here, but illegally.

And yes, I want rules to be decided democratically. Not by „what does hardwires think about it?“.

This is for prosecution. The removal of such speech is a civil suit. Facebook/Twitter might have taken a post more serious when the police came and asked questions, but then, they might not. And prosecution might not what a victim was after, as this involved being part of a legal case where your stance is weaker than that of the claimed perpetrator (as it is a penal case then).

>The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended

Intent never matters. What matters is what happens in reality. The road to hell is paved by good intentions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com