-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
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
Well said. People who criticize the decision seem to really misunderstand First Amendment rights.
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.
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.
It's so fucking easy. I'm not a lawmaker and it makes sense to me. What the hell
User banned (2 weeks): inappropriate national stereotype
Germany being reluctant to silence a nationalist demagogue? How unprecedented.
OP
OP
because maybe they have a different definition? 1st amendment only applies in the USA. but then I am not sure what the difference between the American and German law is.
but overall I do sympathise with her view that private companies shouldn't have that much power to regulate who can say what. There should be laws that determine when they are allowed to silence someone and when not. just saying "it's a private company they can do whatever they want!" might be legally true but it negates the importance and influence that social media has in our daily lifes in the year of our Lord 2020.
1. Donald Trump and all the other terrorists should be banned and given no platform (also thrown in prison).
2. Tech companies, especially social media, are far too big and wield too much power.
These can be and are both true and trying to equate human sludge getting cleaned out the Twitter pipes as stifling free speech is nonsense.
2. Tech companies, especially social media, are far too big and wield too much power.
These can be and are both true and trying to equate human sludge getting cleaned out the Twitter pipes as stifling free speech is nonsense.
And coming from a German, of all people. This is basically the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation that's been brought up a million times by now. It's as close to an open-and-shut case as you can get.
Given how their laws work, it IS unprecedented for a modern mainstream German politician.
if their opinion is that banning him from twitter is limited his free speech then we need to have a real fucking talk about why we've allowed twitter to be the de-factor method of communication for the fucking president of the united states
No she isn't. Twitter is not bound by the 1st. She needs to understand how the 1st works in the US before she comments here. Trump isn't silenced. He's free to spread his desire to overthrow the government and stay in power at the WH briefing room or on the WH website.
I could be wrong but Twitter can decide what they consider acceptable and unacceptable on their own platform just as much as if any of us created our own forum or social media platform as owners we set the rules and could ban anyone we see fit to ban.
OP
OP
people should really read the article or at least the qouted bit or at least the highlighted bit
Absolutely. Corporations like Facebook and Twitter are not our friends and they're pretty vile, if I'm honest. While everyone is undoubtedly cheering at the fact Trump got banned on their services, it's worth remembering the precedent this sets and how disturbing it is that people are actually okay with corporations being allowed to decide stuff like this in the first place.
They have effectively given themselves the power to decide who is allowed to say what and just because they did the right thing once (and only to earn brownie points with the next US administration, remember), it doesn't mean they're always going to use that power properly. When you consider how increasingly invasive these corporations are becoming and how effortlessly they're entrenching themselves in people's lives, more and more legal rights are going to become a grey area that corporations get to decide what you're allowed to have because they own everything you use and do.
Corporations are too powerful already and it is absolutely something that the governments of the world need to address. They need stronger regulation and stricter rules of transparency and accountability.
Yeah, I don't know why this is always equated when talking about social media platforms
This is where I'm at.
Maybe in a healthy, functional, government with good laws and solid checks and balances we could consider someone like Trump not getting banned because the consequences would come from all appropriate directions. However, we do not live in that situation and ultimately, him being removed was the right call.
I guess overall, I think the actual reason for Twitter banning him is weak. Only because I think he should have been banned ages ago for horrible things he did and said, but if this was what it took to get to a breaking point - better late than never.
The government should regulate what the president is empowered to say and do while in office, by using the constitutional power of impeachment. The government failed. That is why Trump is banned. The insistence that Trump not face any consequences for his actions is what got us to this point.
That's a slippery slope when you use government to dictate the agency a company has on their own platform. That flies in the face of the First Amendment more than Twitter making their own choices does.
Also the chancellor of Germany should probably be educated on the first law of the foundational document of the primary ally of the EU.
They don't have that much power. Twitter banned Trump from Twitter for violating TOS, something they should have done 5 years ago. Twitter did not ban Trump from all social media, Twitter did not ban Trump from speaking on TV, Twitter did not ban Trump from showing up on Fox News and spewing his hate.
So please, let's stop exaggerating twitters power here. Any power Twitter has over Trump and his ability to communicate is on Trump and him foolishly over relying on Twitter.
Some people really shouldn't be able to speak freely, if what they have to say incites a mob to overthrow your democratically elected government. Twitter agreed with that, and regulated themselves accordingly.
I wouldn't be able to go up to someone irl and make threats on thier life without expecting repercussions. People shouldn't expect to get away with it on the internet. Or at least expect every company to welcome that with open arms. That's some entitled bullshit.
I wouldn't be able to go up to someone irl and make threats on thier life without expecting repercussions. People shouldn't expect to get away with it on the internet. Or at least expect every company to welcome that with open arms. That's some entitled bullshit.
It's correct to point out that tech companies shouldn't dictate free speech rules and should themselves be held accountable for the ways that they limit and shut down many forms of speech but incorrect to imply that that's what happened here. Trump broke the rules he had agreed to for years and no platform is required to host anyone.
It's amazing how many heads of state seem eager to blatantly and aggressively misunderstand even the most basic of concepts.
I think too many people are looking at the title rather than the content. She's not saying he shouldn't have been deplatformed. She's saying that the onus to do so shouldn't be on private companies, and she's arguing that lawmakers should pass laws preventing such speech in the first place.
Merkel =/= Germany.
You and many others in this thread made that mistake now.
Thanks.
Wasn't Merkel's point just that. Build legal framework what companies need to follow.
You can't say there's a bomb on an airplane. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you sure as shit can't use a social media platform to incite violent insurrection against the government you are trying to stay in control of. Come the fuck on, figure it out!
OP
OP
at what point do we stop comparing multi billion dollar companies with users in the hundreds of millions and billions with worldwide instant reach to a basket weaving forum?
Just because Donald Trump uses Twitter a lot does not make it integral to society. If Biden was banned off Twitter right now I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference to his term.
" Bruno Le Maire, France's Finance Minister, said he was "shocked" by Twitter's decision, adding that it shouldn't be up to "social media oligarchy" to regulate free speech "
Can someone argue how a private company banning a user for violating ToS is regulating free speech?
If she's saying that government should do a better job handling hate speech and calls for insurrection and other related things, then that's acceptable. But even then, under our government the president would be untouchable.