Angela Merkel criticizes lack of hate speech laws in the US, doesn't want onus put on tech companies

[Onebadlion]

Facebook played a huge part in getting Trump elected in the first place, and Trumps tweets were a massive draw to Twitter. Those two companies can fuck right off getting on the moral high horse now. They profited from all this for years and deserve no credit, and certainly no defence.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So you're fine with politician throwing their hands up in the air and doing nothing... We should not be okay with politicians pushing their responibilities on private company just because it is hard work.

Click to shrink...

I'm fine with politicians focusing on things that actually have a chance of succeding yes

You need 75% of the state Legislatures, which like 54% are controlled by Republicans to sign off.

Arguably there's a greater chance that trying to amend 1st Amendment actually results in Reagan level support of the Republican party.

You want that?

 

[RedSonja]

He broke theor terms of service after being warned, so it was fair enough. No-one should be an exception because of who they are. He was making them a lot of money, too, with the traffic. Having said that, something really needs to be done about the influence of social media. So much damage caused in relatively so little time, not just with Trump. It's a force for evil as much as it is for good. Genie is probably already out of the bottle with something like this, but it's how to stop what is the radicalisation of people that are easily influenced and there are a lot of them. Clearly.

 

[Sheldon]

ok, so there's a very very very big difference between a bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple and twitter banning donald trump for inciting an insurrection. i recommend you think a bit on why you decided to draw this comparison.

Click to shrink...

Because both are hateful acts and concerns of the rights of private businesses, power of government to regulate and the push-and-pull between freedom of speech versus necessary restrictions are at play.

I struck the words from your quote that weren't relevant to the comparison I was actually making. Alternatively you could rephrase your objection as "There's a difference between the supreme court sanctioning the rights of a bakery to discriminate and twitter banning donald trump from their services for inciting violence" to be more fair.

 

[Joni]

I'm fine with politicians focusing on things that actually have a chance of succeding yes

You need 75% of the state Legislatures, which like 54% are controlled by Republicans to sign off.

Arguably there's a greater chance the trying to amend 1st Amendment actually results in Reagan level support of the Republican party.

You want that?

Click to shrink...

And clearly, not doing anything led to a terrorist attack on the Capitol which you are fine with then? But so: hate speech, gun restrictions, socialized healthcare, ... should all not be tackled by Biden because there is no chance of them succeeding.

 

[Deleted member 36054]

And clearly, not doing anything led to a terrorist attack on the Capitol which you are fine with then?

Click to shrink...

This is ridiculous. It has been explained in multiple posts in this thread why even discussing hate speech laws in America is futile. Why are you conflating this with apathy?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Legit question what do you want Twitter to do between now and amending the 1st Amendment


Do you want them to be required to follow the free speech laws of the United States?

What do you actually want in this case. In this real world scenario, in between a few days ago and hate speech laws going on the books.

 

[Joni]

This is ridiculous. It has been explained in multiple posts in this thread why even discussing hate speech laws in America is futile. Why are you conflating this with apathy?

Click to shrink...

Because apathy doesn't solve the issue and saying it can't happen is just that. It is either that or wishing for a company regulating public society.

 

[HMD]

She's right in the sense that the lack of hate speech laws lead to this, they wouldn't have needed big tech to intervene if actual laws were enacted to stop it from even getting this far.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And clearly, not doing anything led to a terrorist attack on the Capitol which you are fine with then? But so: hate speech, gun restrictions, socialized healthcare, ... should all not be tackled by Biden because there is no chance of them succeeding.

Click to shrink...

75% of the state Legislature
A religious worshipping of the constitution

Would you prefer a landslide GOP rule or a Democratic one that is tragically held back from passing hate speech laws because of the rigidity of the US Constitution


Your pick, and yes those are your most realistic options

 

[excelsiorlef]

Because apathy doesn't solve the issue and saying it can't happen is just that. It is either that or wishing for a company regulating public society.

Click to shrink...

It's not apathy

I want you to court to 100 000 in 5 seconds.

If you say you can't do it... why are you being apathetic?

 

[Deleted member 36054]

Because apathy doesn't solve the issue and saying it can't happen is just that. It is either that or wishing for a company regulating public society.

Click to shrink...

No saying it can't happen is being realistic.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Merkel's line of reasoning makes no sense in this scenario.

Even if there were hate speech laws on the books, is she expecting Trump to arrest himself? The hate speech was being produced by, and condoned by, the government. So it still would've been up to individual companies to enforce the statutes when applicable.

 

[Joni]

Would you prefer a landslide GOP rule or a Democratic one that is tragically held back from passing hate speech laws because of the rigidity of the US Constitution

Click to shrink...

No saying it can't happen is being realistic.

Click to shrink...

What is the purpose of a Democratic government if they can't do anything? This excuse is applied to everything that is good for the US. What if next time Facebook and Twitter decide not to ban a Trump-like because they aren't backed by the law?

 

[excelsiorlef]

What is the purpose of a Democratic government if they can't do anything? This excuse is applied to everything that is good for the US.

Click to shrink...

They can do a shit ton of things

They just can't unilaterally amendment the constitution my god.

This line of argument makes facility look facile.

 

[Joni]

They can do a shit ton of things

They just can't unilaterally amendment the constitution my god.

This line of argument makes facility look facile.

Click to shrink...

If only there were other ways to at least try and solve the issue... Like improving SEC230 for instance.

 

[DarkVaber32]

The way i understand what she said is that the USA needs to regulate hate speech within the government, and not provide this responsibilities to companies like Twitter/Facebook/etc. Just like how the German government tries to hunt down the Nazi political party "AfD".

Following that reasoning, Trump should have never been allowed to become President

 

[Wandering Soul]

She's right in the sense that the lack of hate speech laws lead to this, they wouldn't have needed big tech to intervene if actual laws were enacted to stop it from even getting this far.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this. Many are upset about the social media companies' actions here but it never should have gotten to the point where it was up to them in the first place to make a decision about it. 1st Amendment rights are touchy and extremely important, but it worries me how we have gotten to the point where tens of millions of Americans seem to believe that 1st Amendment means "freedom to say whatever I want without consequence."

Donald Trump's 1st Amendment rights were not infringed upon here, nor were anyone else's who gets banned or prevented from being able to say something on any platform. You still have the right to say what you want in America. However, you also have the right to face consequences for said speech.

I think the Internet has accelerated this notion and it's unfortunate. I'm not saying there is more hatred in the world than there was before the Internet, but rather that the anonymous nature of the Internet such as the rise of keyboard warriors, discussion forums online, and even in verbal speech in things as silly as a Call of Duty game has led to a culture of hate speech being so easy to get away with. Some of the things I have heard people say on online games and on forums is just downright disgusting and unacceptable and in my opinion, it is far easier for this behavior to propagate because almost no one will ever face any consequence for it due to the anonymous nature of the Internet.

I'm not really sure what we do about this realistically either. It's another one of the reason's why the Internet is the defining invention of our age and why it is the greatest blessing and also the greatest curse. It brings out the best and the worst of humanity.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If only there were other ways to at least try and solve the issue... Like improving SEC230 for instance.

Click to shrink...

Well that's quite a jump from what good are they if they can't amendmend the 1st Amendment. Kund of weird you have the same tone still.

Define improving 230

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.theverge.com

Buden wants to revoke it

Do you agree with that?

 

[Joni]

Well that's quite a jump from what good are they if they can't amendmend the 1st Amendment

Click to shrink...

You were the one stating this is impossible because the first amendment exists, there have been enough other laws added that change the limits of the first amendment and that have survived SCOTUS. SCOTUS even themselves 'put' extra limits.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.theverge.com

Buden wants to revoke it

Do you agree with that?

Click to shrink...

Only revoking for a limited set of companies seems hypocritical, but it is proof that Biden at least wants to tackle the problems of freedom of speech.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You were the one stating this is impossible because the first amendment exists, there have been enough other laws added that change the limits of the first amendment and that have survived SCOTUS. SCOTUS even themselves 'put' extra limits.

Click to shrink...

Because it is impossible, also liberal and conservative justices alike have ruled hate speech is protected time and time again and again, and to boot the court is a 6-3 conservative mess for likely decades to come.

The only way to do it is amendment and that's literally as close to impossible as anything can ever be.

Like you're operating in magic fairy dreamland and getting really mad people are telling you that magic fairy dreamland isn't real.

While also assuming we're all against magic fairy dreamland

 

[excelsiorlef]

Only revoking for a limited set of companies seems hypocritical, but it is proof that Biden at least wants to tackle the problems of freedom of speech.

Click to shrink...

Ok so you approve revoking 230?

 

[Arttemis]

Yes, I agree the government should regulate social media. The fate of our democracy shouldn't be up to the whims of corporations.

Click to shrink...

This. Make an independent organization like the ESRB to oversee moderation with requirements against hate speech, threats, racism, etc, and make it the adopted standard for advertising revenue, since that is the only damn thing these companies care about. That way, actual moderation will be necessary to get the 'gold seal of approval' tied to advertisers.

Because it is impossible, also liberal and conservative justices alike have ruled hate speech is protected time and time again and again, and to boot the court is a 6-3 conservative mess for likely decades to come.



The only way to do it is amendment and that's literally as close to impossible as anything can ever be.



Like you're operating in magic fairy dreamland and getting really mad people are telling you that magic fairy dreamland isn't real.



While also assuming we're all against magic fairy dreamland

Click to shrink...

It's not the only way to do it. Industries can wholesale adopt actual moderation. They've done absolutely nothing for way too long, and if it takes trials to cause them to implement something as big as the ESRB, then that's what should happen.

 

[Joni]

Ok so you approve revoking 230?

Click to shrink...

Probably not a good idea without a sufficient replacement for section 2. it would make Facebook and Twitter liable for banning Trump.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Probably not a good idea without a sufficient replacement for section 2.

Click to shrink...

Cause yeah was gonna say revoking just means Twitter has more impetus to unilaterally ban people left right and center, and without 230 it'll be for incredibly benign things.

 

[Lurcharound]

The way i understand what she said is that the USA needs to regulate hate speech within the government, and not provide this responsibilities to companies like Twitter/Facebook/etc. Just like how the German government tries to hunt down the Nazi political party "AfD".

Following that reasoning, Trump should have never been allowed to become President

Click to shrink...

TBH she's not really making direct recommendation at all as such; I missed this myself initially just taking context in English.

What's she really doing is holding up US as negative example, using the current high profile coverage and individual involved, and making the case Germany, and by extension other EU countries, need to do better and learn from US mistakes. That they need clear and enforceable laws that instruct corporations what to do in those explicit cases instead of leaving if to the corporations to decide.

Obviously by extension if you were to backtrack that to the example, then for US to improve it would need to improve hate laws and their enforcement. This doesn't technically need to be change of 1st amendment BTW, merely laws accepted as not breaking it but improving hate speech coverage.

I guess the original title didn't help but the major misinterpretation here is most are taking this as direct advice for US and requiring changes to 1st amendment. Really, to be blunt, she's saying "let's not luck this up the way US has".

No country's perfect and the context with Trump is a great example. Clearly a stronger and more consistent legal framework that did not recognise senior political exemption would have censured Trump far sooner, President or not.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's not the only way to do it. Industries can wholesale adopt actual moderation. They've done absolutely nothing for way too long, and if it takes trials to cause them to implement something as big as the ESRB, then that's what should happen.

Click to shrink...

You're preaching to the choir on this... but you're suggestion is counter to the thesis of this thread which argues private companies self moderating speech is dangerous and it should only be the government that tells them what speech to ban.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Obviously by extension if you were to backtrack that to the example, then for US to improve it would need to improve hate laws and their enforcement. This doesn't technically need to be change of 1st amendment BTW, merely laws accepted as not breaking it but improving hate speech coverage

Click to shrink...

This requires amending the constitution

 

[Deleted member 24097]

I never thouht I'd ever say that about Merkel but I agree with her 100%.

Providing a proper definition for hate speech and a legal framework to prosecute it is something a state must do.

Leaving it to the sole discretion of tech companies is beyond stupid: it is dangerous. Laws are there to prevent shit to hit the fan on a whim.
Turning one's back to lawmaking because of some vague definition of "freedom" is a cretinous idea that has been pushed forward for far too long by, ironically, only the most backwards individuals.
Freedom should be a right, not a justification for hatred and heinous crimes.

The right to censor should never, ever be put in the hands of private corporations.

The USA must get their shit together on that issue.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The USA must get their shit together on that issue.

Click to shrink...

They literally can't in terns of hate speech laws

If you have a time machine that can go back to the 1700s by all means let's go.

 

[Arttemis]

You're preaching to the choir on this... but you're suggestion is counter to the thesis of this thread which argues private companies self moderating speech is dangerous and it should only be the government that tells them what speech to ban.

Click to shrink...

I think the companies have more than proven that they are incapable of this. Waiting until after an attempted coup to occur that was fomented entirely on their platforms to start enforcing moderation... That's unacceptable.

I'm on the west coast and am just waking up so the OP and a dozen posts are all I've read. I'm guessing the title originally framed this argument differently?

Even so, I will always call for an independent oversight committee because it's a proven effective solution to this kind of problem. Moderation of user generated content will require more work, but Facebook hires something like 5x the amount of employees to moderate Germany specifically. It's beyond fucked up that everywhere else is left to fester in conspiracy theory, treasonous, racist, bigoted shit.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think the companies have more than proven that they are incapable of this. Waiting until after an attempted coup to occur that was fomented entirely on their platforms to start enforcing moderation... That's unacceptable.

I'm on the west coast and am just waking up so the OP and a dozen posts are all I've read. I'm guessing the title originally framed this argument differently?

Even so, I will always call for an independent oversight committee because it's a proven effective solution to this kind of problem. Moderation of user generated content will require more work, but Facebook hires something like 5x the amount of employees to moderate Germany specifically. It's beyond fucked up that everywhere else is left to fester in conspiracy theory, treasonous, racist, bigoted shit.

Click to shrink...

It'd unfortunately have to be a voluntary oversight group but works for me

Better solution than the people rambling about amending the 1st Amendment lol

 

[Joni]

Even so, I will always call for an independent oversight committee because it's a proven effective solution to this kind of problem. Moderation of user generated content will require more work, but Facebook hires something like 5x the amount of employees to moderate Germany specifically. It's beyond fucked up that everywhere else is left to fester in conspiracy theory, treasonous, racist, bigoted shit.

Click to shrink...

Of course, they are bound by hate speech laws in the EU. That works a lot better than any toothless non-governmental committee.

 

[Deleted member 24097]

They literally can't in terns of hate speech laws

If you have a time machine that can go back to the 1700s by all means let's go.

Click to shrink...

People have the right to vote.
If a candidate puts out the idea to reform the constitution for the better, people are free to vote for them.


"It's a lost cause" isn't an argument. If you decide not to try and push that fight forward, the onus is on you.

 

[excelsiorlef]

People have the right to vote.
If a candidate puts out the idea to reform the constitution for the better, people are free to vote for them.


"It's a lost cause" isn't an argument. If you decide not to try and push that fight forward, the onus is on you.

Click to shrink...

That's nonsense, we can't expect lawmakers to waste time chasing absolute fantasy. You might as well be saying they're deficient because they haven't banned cancer from existing, and note I'm not saying cure cancer, I mean passing a law that makes cancer itself illegal and arguing that cancer will now go away

It is lost cause because it is a lost cause.

It requires 75% of the state Legislatures

It's not happening and trying to make it happen has a better chance of causing a Reagan like return to power for the Republicans due to Backlash

Amendeding the 1st Amendment is not going to happen period, even if Federally the Democrats were to take a near permanent 66% control of the House and Senate, and the Presidency, and they all agree to do it... the state legislatures will never become 75% controlled by the Democrats, all who agree to do it.

The reality the Constitution is not the best legal document for versatility.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Of course, they are bound by hate speech laws in the EU. That works a lot better than any toothless non-governmental committee.

Click to shrink...

Well no shit, but that's not working with reality in the United States is it?

This person is trying to work within what can be done in the US

 

[Daneel_O]

She's right and what happened in US should be a wake-up call for governments worldwide to tackle the matter since we are already late.

These platforms are unquestionably part of our public life now and as such should be regulated at least in a broad sense by public laws.

It's incredibly naive and dangerous to expect these companies to do it on our behalf, especially since they are going to do it based on a partial perception of (their users') right and wrong.

I don't know how you can be happy or satisfied about what's going on now or cheer companies that basically let things mount up to the point of no return and are only now jumping on the "enough is enough" train parroting each other because the public opinion largely agrees on the matter. What's going to happen with the next topic or public figure that crosses the line? And who is going to draw that line?

 

[Bromancer]

Nah, fuck that. Also, pretty rich coming from a country that already has very extensive rules against hate speech - why should we be told to tolerate it when they make it 100% illegal themselves?

Click to shrink...

You and most everyone else on the first page are missing the point completely. She doesn't want you to tolerate this, in fact she wants you to draw up laws that limit the right to free speech. Americans in general have always thought that was a recipe for dictatorship, until a few days ago, when you did actually almost become a dictatorship.

Taking things even further, the issue is that Trump wasn't censored. He can't be silenced by Twitter, because he can just go on Fox News and incite hatred there. In the US every platform can be its own judge, so of course there will always be a platform who welcomes him. In Germany, he would be beholden to the law, regardless of what platform he decides to use. German judges have legal recourse to deal with this shit, while American judges just gotta hope Zuckerberg and Dorsey and Murdoch and literally every other private information magnate decide to side with decency/safety for once. Which they only do when it aligns with their bottom line. I'm not saying we have a perfect system here, but your system relies on the convenience of CEOs over a law that people can vote on. Because apparently even on the left, "no step on snek" is still America's core ideology.

What's more, since it's always the MAGA types complaining about it, the American left appears to have decided censorship cannot ever be a problem. Yet when Alex Jones gets thrown off social media, they remind themselves "deplatforming works". So which is it? For anyone less of a known quantity than Jones, it works even better. It depends on the situation, and in both situations, the constitution apparently allows CEOs to do whatever they can because it's their platform.

You need to have a great big discussion about what constitutes hate speech and what constitutes censorship, so that you can draw the line and point to it whenever a decision needs to be made. The bottom line of tech companies should not ever be a factor in that discussion.

Seriously, listen to Merkel.

 

[Lurcharound]

This requires amending the constitution

Click to shrink...

Not that I'm aware of. It requires the Supreme Court to decide that a law doesn't infringe 1st Amendment. There are already examples of speech not deemed covered by 1st and some, say those around incitement of imminent threat, could likely be bent to give better support for restricting hate speech.

The 1st is open to interpretation and that's down to the Supreme Court to decide.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Not that I'm aware of. It requires the Supreme Court to decide that a law doesn't infringe 1st Amendment. There are already examples of speech not deemed covered by 1st and some, say those around incitement of imminent threat, could likely be bent to give better support for restricting hate speech.

The 1st is open to interpretation and that's down to the Supreme Court to decide.

Click to shrink...

The Supreme court as ruled time and again in favour of hate speech being protected both liberal and conservative

And the court is 6-3 conservative and will be potentially for a very long time anyway but it doesn't matter it has been bipartisan on ruling because the 1st Amendment is quite ridgid and far reaching

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm fine with politicians focusing on things that actually have a chance of succeding yes

You need 75% of the state Legislatures, which like 54% are controlled by Republicans to sign off.

Arguably there's a greater chance the trying to amend 1st Amendment actually results in Reagan level support of the Republican party.

You want that?

Click to shrink...

Facts.

 

[lmcfigs]

"it shouldn't be up to twitter to limit free speech! "
yeah

"the government should do it instead!"
wait... what?

 

[Lurcharound]

The Supreme court as ruled time and again in favour of hate speech being protected both liberal and conservative

And the court is 6-3 conservative and will be potentially for a very long time anyway but it doesn't matter it has been bipartisan on ruling because the 1st Amendment is quite ridgid and far reaching

Click to shrink...

You're again equating unlikely with never and impossible. There are examples of the SC ruling the other way and and there will be again. To increase odds requires awareness, determination and social pressure, not assuming they won't and giving up.

The point is that, objectively, the 1st isn't an absolute and that, objectively, certain speech can be deemed exempt from protection from it. And that can be used to imported how hate speech is handled. It's already the case it's not 100% and that thin wedge is what can be used.

While amending the 1st would be more impactful I do agree that's incredibly unlikely currently or indeed anytime soon and beyond: where I disagree is dismissing it outright because, while a much longer effort, if it is going to be changed even more determination, effort and pressure will need to be applied continuously over a long period of time.

And if US is going to survive changing social mores and demographics sooner or latter those sacred cows are going to have to change. That's truly inevitable.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You're again equating unlikely with never and impossible. There are examples of the SC ruling the other way and and there will be again. To increase odds requires awareness, determination and social pressure, not assuming they won't and giving up.

The point is that, objectively, the 1st isn't an absolute and that, objectively, certain speech can be deemed exempt from protection from it. And that can be used to imported how hate speech is handled. It's already the case it's not 100% and that thin wedge is what can be used.

While amending the 1st would be more impactful I do agree that's incredibly unlikely currently or indeed anytime soon and beyond: where I disagree is dismissing it outright because, while a much longer effort, if it is going to be changed even more determination, effort and pressure will need to be applied continuously over a long period of time.

And if US is going to survive changing social mores and demographics sooner or latter those sacred cows are going to have to change. That's truly inevitable.

Click to shrink...

No I'm just speaking the truth

Trying to amend the 1st Amendment is a greater risk of handing complete and long term control to the Republicans than success.

It's not like I'm happy about this but it's a complete waste of time and energy to contemplate unless red states just cease to be a thing and uh how's that looking

 

[Cipherr]

I don't agree with her, and I'm surprised she's saying this when she probably utterly despises Trump.

Though it sounds more like she's saying she doesn't think it should be up to companies to make these decisions, and she may have a point there. While it's well within a company's rights to decide who to serve, the task of stamping out hate speech should probably be standardized and regulated higher up.

Click to shrink...

As mentioned though, this becomes instantly problematic when the government is the source of such speech. Under their control what would Republicans have done to such rules while Trump was in office? Care to take a guess? They certainly werent going to hold him accountable for breaking the rules... And this is why I don't want government with direct control over it.

 

[Deleted member 16908]

I don't understand how the internet would be able to function without section 230 or something roughly equivalent to it.

 

[Daneel_O]

As mentioned though, this becomes instantly problematic when the government is the source of such speech. Under their control what would Republicans have done to such rules while Trump was in office? Care to take a guess? They certainly werent going to hold him accountable for breaking the rules... And this is why I don't want government with direct control over it.

Click to shrink...

I don't think anybody is suggesting that a government must have direct control on online platforms, especially since it would be practically impossible.

But it's imperative that governments and lawmakers set principles and regulations to which these platforms must conform, either internally or with the aid of third-party agencies.
Germany itself approved a law (heavily criticized and probably flawed) that forced Facebook and the others to increase moderation terms, speed and quantity. I don't know if it brought improvements but it's a start.

It's not going to be easy or straightforward, but nonetheless it's the only sensible way to approach the issue. It's not like leaving the initiative (or lack of) to the platforms themselves did any good so far, unless you consider what happened in US a "victory".