Angela Merkel criticizes lack of hate speech laws in the US, doesn't want onus put on tech companies
- Thread starter Bad Advice
- Start date
People saying the 1st amendment doesn't protect twitter speech are missing the point here. She's talking about the fundamental concept of free speech,. not the exact American implementation of it.
In a vacuum, it makes sense. Government, through elected representatives, should legislate what speech is protected and what isn't. Tech oligarchs should not. I think most people would agree with this.
In our specific situation though, the issue is that twitter speech is neither explicitly allowed nor condemned, but instead, pretty much unaddressed. Therefore, it leaves a responsibility hole that we are allowing (and even pleading) private CEOs to pick up. Look at this as a critique not of twitter's ban, but of the system that forced it to come to this.
In a vacuum, it makes sense. Government, through elected representatives, should legislate what speech is protected and what isn't. Tech oligarchs should not. I think most people would agree with this.
In our specific situation though, the issue is that twitter speech is neither explicitly allowed nor condemned, but instead, pretty much unaddressed. Therefore, it leaves a responsibility hole that we are allowing (and even pleading) private CEOs to pick up. Look at this as a critique not of twitter's ban, but of the system that forced it to come to this.
If it was up to the government to regulate this then I doubt Trump's administration would have banned his ass.
At the barest minimum, in the US, where Twitter is HQ'd, no Free Speech laws or rights were violated.
The laws may or may not be different in other countries (although from a precursory glance at Germany's laws, Twitter still didn't violate anything from what I can see.), but people should stop conflating removing Trump from a platform 5 years later than they should have as "restricting free speech". Because it isn't.
The laws may or may not be different in other countries (although from a precursory glance at Germany's laws, Twitter still didn't violate anything from what I can see.), but people should stop conflating removing Trump from a platform 5 years later than they should have as "restricting free speech". Because it isn't.
As much as I love Trump finally being banned, I do share this view to a large extent. We are looking at a slippery slope future regarding these matters.
but it would be similar to someone shooting a mass shooter, and having someone come out with, "Well, that person should not have shot the mass shooter because that mass shooter shouldn't have been allowed to own guns in the first place."
just a weird way to phrase it regardless.
This she's really tech illiterate and doesn't even use social media at all .
Hate speech laws in the US would be nice. And he called for violence so the ban is well-earned.
I do agree that social media shouldn't have as much leeway as they've been given for the past few years, but the government is also to blame for not doing enough to hold these companies responsibilities for their (in)actions.
I do agree that social media shouldn't have as much leeway as they've been given for the past few years, but the government is also to blame for not doing enough to hold these companies responsibilities for their (in)actions.
what they are saying is that government should decide that and not Twitter.
that said, Twitter can ban whomever they want
Yeah well while it is correct that leaving stuff like this up to companies and not the government for regulation is a stupid way to have a system, sometimes there isn't an option for that. The usa has spent an insane amount of time crafting this narrative that pretty much everything with few exceptions counts as protected speech, half the shite that trump said wouldn't be allowed as free speech in a lot of European countries by a normal person, but the usa supreme Court has allowed it even when it's hate speech.
Let's also forget that the usa isn't a functioning government and hasn't been for a long time, and it's a surprise when anything new and meaningful is passed into law now. Most things passed are just updates or renewing old shit because the GOP refuse to even talk about anything else they don't agree with 100% and won't compromise at all to find the fabled middle ground.
What does anyone expect to be done? Let trump continue to cause attacks on government in hope that maybe after the 2nd or 3rd the GOP might finally pass a law to change his right to do so? Yeah sorry but no.
What we should be asking is if the usa government still thinks self regulation bullshit is the way forward when it has been shown over and over to never actually work. Twitter only took steps after years of trumps shit, other companies also waited years because they valued their profits over doing the right thing for the people, the fear of regulation is what's got these movements by big corporations even before the election, they didn't care before then while shit was going down.
Let's also forget that the usa isn't a functioning government and hasn't been for a long time, and it's a surprise when anything new and meaningful is passed into law now. Most things passed are just updates or renewing old shit because the GOP refuse to even talk about anything else they don't agree with 100% and won't compromise at all to find the fabled middle ground.
What does anyone expect to be done? Let trump continue to cause attacks on government in hope that maybe after the 2nd or 3rd the GOP might finally pass a law to change his right to do so? Yeah sorry but no.
What we should be asking is if the usa government still thinks self regulation bullshit is the way forward when it has been shown over and over to never actually work. Twitter only took steps after years of trumps shit, other companies also waited years because they valued their profits over doing the right thing for the people, the fear of regulation is what's got these movements by big corporations even before the election, they didn't care before then while shit was going down.
Maybe, but every baby step in the right direction helps. That they now put Trump on the "but he's a politician" pedestal when he's just a nazi troll is disgusting. They all know better and this all falls in the category of "humoring him for a bit longer can't hurt" category for me. It doesn't just hurt, it kills as we saw...
That's what I am understanding. She wants the government to regulate the social platforms more?
So in this instance, the government would had made twitter ban Trump?
In whatever hypothetical she is talking about, I hope politicians are held to the same standard as the common citizen.
Just because you hold office, you are not above the TOS.
Just seems that she wants corporations to go through a government process in order to censor someone. Very German lol
In this scenario, the president would be untouchable. He'd still be openly calling for insurrection on this platform because the government would not act at all.
Twitter is simply a private platform and is not critical for anything at all. He's free to communicate with the American people and the world in countless other ways.
I don't disagree with criticism of Trump's ban from the perspective that the grounds were more or less arbitrary, given what he has posted throughout his presidency, and that what decided it was various platforms' self-interests rather than some consistent codes of ethics. I feel like we shouldn't let platforms have it both ways and allow them to be both bastions of (more or less) unfiltered free speech and moderated for the common good whenever it is convenient for them to be so. I think this article was very cogent.
People are misconstruing what she is saying.
governments should regulate free speech, not private corporations.
Unfortunetly the EU has been slow to actually force moderation and scrutiny regarding social networks so it's a bit weird that she is complaining when Twitter here did the right thing.
But what is hate speech should be regulated by elected officials and not billionaires
governments should regulate free speech, not private corporations.
Unfortunetly the EU has been slow to actually force moderation and scrutiny regarding social networks so it's a bit weird that she is complaining when Twitter here did the right thing.
But what is hate speech should be regulated by elected officials and not billionaires
I only agree with the first part. Private platforms should absolutely have the right to determine who is on the platform and who isn't. No one has a God-given right to a Twitter account.
Once again, ERA shows its ass with people who read only the headline and don't even bother to skim the article.
But, shame on you OP, Bad Advice the thread title gets precisely this sort of reaction because of how you framed it.
Yo, fellow Americans, maybe educate your asses about the fundamental differences between how EU nations regard freedom of speech and the many MANY government restrictions they have on speech. What Merkel and other European leaders have an issue with is the entire concept of the U.S. hands-off-approach to speech and laying the onus for restrictions on companies and lawyers.
I admit, it's shit timing from Merkel, but their argument (as some others in the thread have noted) is that it NEVER should have gotten this far in the first place because there should be laws in place that restrict it. How the U.S. lets corporations have all the power is mostly why we're in this fucking mess to begin with.
But, shame on you OP, Bad Advice the thread title gets precisely this sort of reaction because of how you framed it.
Yo, fellow Americans, maybe educate your asses about the fundamental differences between how EU nations regard freedom of speech and the many MANY government restrictions they have on speech. What Merkel and other European leaders have an issue with is the entire concept of the U.S. hands-off-approach to speech and laying the onus for restrictions on companies and lawyers.
I admit, it's shit timing from Merkel, but their argument (as some others in the thread have noted) is that it NEVER should have gotten this far in the first place because there should be laws in place that restrict it. How the U.S. lets corporations have all the power is mostly why we're in this fucking mess to begin with.
As a German, I understand her point and agree, though I think her criticism misses the American mark. She's arguing that hate speech and similar should be regulated by the government and thus made actionable based on those laws, like it is in Germany too. It shouldn't be up to tech to decide what goes and what doesn't one day or another.
That said, good luck regulating hate speech in the US when the 1st amendment exists. No lawmaker will ever want to touch this subject matter with a 10 foot poll. At that point, tech stepping in and banning the fool days before his presidency comes to an end is better than nothing happening at all. However, Americans shouldn't have to wait on tech shitting their profit pants for that to happen - in an ideal world anyway.
That said, good luck regulating hate speech in the US when the 1st amendment exists. No lawmaker will ever want to touch this subject matter with a 10 foot poll. At that point, tech stepping in and banning the fool days before his presidency comes to an end is better than nothing happening at all. However, Americans shouldn't have to wait on tech shitting their profit pants for that to happen - in an ideal world anyway.
And yet the literally almost no governments actually do that. So if we can't rely on governments then companies are forced to step in. Also it's absurd to say we should rely on the say government "moderating" that speech when they are the ones saying it.
Maybe she should have clarified that the EU should get off their asses and create their own regulations. Blaming Twitter is nonsense
The only reason why Twitter had to even step in is because the government's of the world have failed to set up legal frameworks so far. Self regulation of corporations never works.
In this case Twitter didn't ban Trump out of the goodness of their hearts. They try to preempt regulations and laws that would hold them accountable. Twitter was fine to profit from the erosion of democracy and common decency until it got too hot for them to ignore.
Fuck Twitter, fuck social media corporations in general for enabling these swines to poison society and profit from it.
Twitter, Facebook and their rotten ilk can't be trusted with anything other than their inherent greed.
In this case Twitter didn't ban Trump out of the goodness of their hearts. They try to preempt regulations and laws that would hold them accountable. Twitter was fine to profit from the erosion of democracy and common decency until it got too hot for them to ignore.
Fuck Twitter, fuck social media corporations in general for enabling these swines to poison society and profit from it.
Twitter, Facebook and their rotten ilk can't be trusted with anything other than their inherent greed.
Trump is free to shout his thoughts into a golden toilet, but social media companies have every right to moderate what is said on their platform.
She is explaining what Europe would be doing in this situation and why we're doing it this way and why she thinks our approach is preferable.
This statement is entirely consistent with her point of view and must not be misunderstood as a defense of Trump. She despises the man.
The posting reflex of Resetera is disgusting sometimes. It's pretty clear what she's saying, yet many people still feel the need to misinterpret her words in the worst way possible.
It really shouldn't be up to Twitter and Facebook to decide what is free speech, or harmful speech. There should be clear laws, and those laws should be followed. People thinking she misunderstands the right of free speech clearly has no idea how Germany handles any pro-nazi messaging. But it's the responsibility of the government to create laws, and it's up to social media companies to follow that law. While the current result was necessary, it's still clear the entire response on the rise of Trumpism was a failure.
If nothing changes, all that's necessary is for a alt-right big tech (Lucky Palmers?) millionaire/billionaire or a foreign state to start a social media platform and create a home for these MAGA-types to make the movement even stronger. It shouldn't be dependent on that.
It really shouldn't be up to Twitter and Facebook to decide what is free speech, or harmful speech. There should be clear laws, and those laws should be followed. People thinking she misunderstands the right of free speech clearly has no idea how Germany handles any pro-nazi messaging. But it's the responsibility of the government to create laws, and it's up to social media companies to follow that law. While the current result was necessary, it's still clear the entire response on the rise of Trumpism was a failure.
If nothing changes, all that's necessary is for a alt-right big tech (Lucky Palmers?) millionaire/billionaire or a foreign state to start a social media platform and create a home for these MAGA-types to make the movement even stronger. It shouldn't be dependent on that.
OP
OP
Yeah it can be understood as a signal to those companies that that kind of behaviour won't fly in Europe and that they will seek to reign in those companies powers.
Oh sure just go amend the 1st amendment the US constitution easy peasy.... if that's her argument it is useless.
You're correct, Donald Trump should be the one deciding who's allowed to say what.
Then the solution is we specifically outlaw violent speech on these types of platforms, similar to how we outlaw violent/hate speech in real life. Twitter should have the ability to ban whomever they wish. BUT there is a subset of users they MUST ban, and Jack should not be the decision maker on those.
This is completely it - I don't know why people are misreading her. You may think it's great that "the freemarket has decided we don't want this s***" but actually, I'd rather free speech was held accountable to a neutral not-for-profit body (like the state) rather than a stupid social media company... I don't want corporations being the arbiters of ethics and speech acts!
The twitter ban is not a 1st amendment violation.
Exactly. Even if this is not about the law but spirit of "free speech" he violated the TOS numerable times in his usage of their service and they have every right to ban him. Use a government or personally owned channel, don't really on 3rd parties to give official communication.
Yep she's wrong but this isn't made any easier be there selective nature of banning being done. You can't just ban Trump whilst allowing every other dictator to run amok encouraging all sorts of violence on a day to day basis
It's why all this feels so empty on Twitter/FB at least. Apply the hammer to all the monsters
It's why all this feels so empty on Twitter/FB at least. Apply the hammer to all the monsters
Here here, here's to the freedom of bigots to send slurs daily at minority twitter users with no ability to be banned because outside of twitter you can't be arrested for hurling slurs at minorities.
The problem isn't so much that she's wrong. I understand what she's trying to communicate. Upholding standards against violent speech should be a matter of government and not private entities. And even if you disagree with that, it isn't a controversial position to take.
The problem is that Merkel, and so many other people, are choosing this moment, with this man, after everything he's done, to plant their flag in the sand on free speech.
Y'all. We're talking about Donald Trump. This is not the moment.
The problem is that Merkel, and so many other people, are choosing this moment, with this man, after everything he's done, to plant their flag in the sand on free speech.
Y'all. We're talking about Donald Trump. This is not the moment.