10 karma · joined November 16, 2019
Interesting! Would you share your solution and/or tell us a little more about it? Thanks!
That is false. It was rather yet another colonial endeavour:
"In 1940, the harmonium was banned from All-India Radio, theretofore the largest single employer of harmoniumists in India. John Foulds, a prolific composer and the European music director of All-India Radio, Delhi, was largely responsible for this ban. [...] In 1938 Foulds published an article called “The Harmonium” in which he suggested that it be banned because its tuning was incompatible with Indian classical music. Echoing a term coined by fellow theosophist Margaret Cousins, he called it the “Harm-Onium” in this article. But more significantly, he called it “un-Indian.” Shortly afterward, Lionel Fielden, the Controller of Broadcasting at the time, sent out a circular banning the use of the harmonium as an accompanying or solo instrument in Indian classical music broadcasts." (Matt Rahaim (2011). That Ban(e) of Indian Music: Hearing Politics in The Harmonium. The Journal of Asian Studies, 70, p. 673)
That is wrong. Merely, NetzDG imposes an obligation on specific social network providers to establish an "effective and transparent process" to deal with complaints about unlawful content. Without prescribing a specific process in itself, it specifies certain functional requirements. Among them, this process has to ensure that "blatantly illegal content" is being removed within 24 hours, unless the social network provider has agreed on a longer timespan with the law enforcement agency.
Any fines the NetzDG stipulates do only refer to failures to meet requirements of process design. In no case there are fines for social media providers in the case of wrongfully consider a piece of content lawful in a specific case.
It seems to me that this whole discussion is fundamentally unable to consider these legal nuances. Also, blaming NetzDG for actions of authoritarian governments is just plain silly.