What Happened When Germany Tried to Fight Online Hate Speech? (msn.com) 236
"Harassment and abuse are all too common on the modern internet," writes the New York Times. "Yet it was supposed to be different in Germany."
In 2017, the country enacted one of the world's toughest laws against online hate speech. It requires Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to remove illegal comments, pictures or videos within 24 hours of being notified about them or risk fines of up to 50 million euros, or $59 million. Supporters hailed it as a watershed moment for internet regulation and a model for other countries. But an influx of hate speech and harassment in the run-up to the German election, in which the country will choose a new leader to replace Angela Merkel, its longtime chancellor, has exposed some of the law's weaknesses...
Some critics of the law say it is too weak, with limited enforcement and oversight. They also maintain that many forms of abuse are deemed legal by the platforms, such as certain kinds of harassment of women and public officials. And when companies do remove illegal material, critics say, they often do not alert the authorities or share information about the posts, making prosecutions of the people publishing the material far more difficult. Another loophole, they say, is that smaller platforms like the messaging app Telegram, popular among far-right groups, are not subject to the law. Free-expression groups criticize the law on other grounds. They argue that the law should be abolished not only because it fails to protect victims of online abuse and harassment, but also because it sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship of the internet.
To address concerns that companies were not alerting the authorities to illegal posts, German policymakers this year passed amendments to the law. They require Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to turn over data to the police about accounts that post material that German law would consider illegal speech. The Justice Ministry was also given more powers to enforce the law... Facebook and Google have filed a legal challenge to block the new rules, arguing that providing the police with personal information about users violates their privacy.
An activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin tells the Times the law could encourage companies to remove offensive-but-legal speech. And Twitter shared a statement with additional concerns. "Threats, abusive content and harassment all have the potential to silence individuals. However, regulation and legislation such as this also has the potential to chill free speech by emboldening regimes around the world to legislate as a way to stifle dissent and legitimate speech."
Yet Germany's experience may ultimately influence policy across Europe, the Times points out, since German officials "are playing a key role in drafting one of the world's most anticipated new internet regulations, a European Union law called the Digital Services Act, which will require Facebook and other online platforms to do more to address the vitriol, misinformation and illicit content on their sites."
Some critics of the law say it is too weak, with limited enforcement and oversight. They also maintain that many forms of abuse are deemed legal by the platforms, such as certain kinds of harassment of women and public officials. And when companies do remove illegal material, critics say, they often do not alert the authorities or share information about the posts, making prosecutions of the people publishing the material far more difficult. Another loophole, they say, is that smaller platforms like the messaging app Telegram, popular among far-right groups, are not subject to the law. Free-expression groups criticize the law on other grounds. They argue that the law should be abolished not only because it fails to protect victims of online abuse and harassment, but also because it sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship of the internet.
To address concerns that companies were not alerting the authorities to illegal posts, German policymakers this year passed amendments to the law. They require Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to turn over data to the police about accounts that post material that German law would consider illegal speech. The Justice Ministry was also given more powers to enforce the law... Facebook and Google have filed a legal challenge to block the new rules, arguing that providing the police with personal information about users violates their privacy.
An activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin tells the Times the law could encourage companies to remove offensive-but-legal speech. And Twitter shared a statement with additional concerns. "Threats, abusive content and harassment all have the potential to silence individuals. However, regulation and legislation such as this also has the potential to chill free speech by emboldening regimes around the world to legislate as a way to stifle dissent and legitimate speech."
Yet Germany's experience may ultimately influence policy across Europe, the Times points out, since German officials "are playing a key role in drafting one of the world's most anticipated new internet regulations, a European Union law called the Digital Services Act, which will require Facebook and other online platforms to do more to address the vitriol, misinformation and illicit content on their sites."
Pussy and Mouse game of catch up (Score:5, Funny)
> "Harassment and abuse are all too common on the modern internet,"
Build a better online hate speech censor and the world will breed a bigger pussy. - Abraham Lincoln
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Online hate speech like... (Score:2, Insightful)
...Hunter Biden is a crackhead in the pay of foreign interests [battleswarmblog.com]?
That was a story American media companies suppressed because it was true and hurt the candidate they wanted to win.
We all know that the only "hate speech" that will be suppressed is speech that the ruling powers hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Four years later and still no charges. I'm sure Hillary's emails will turn up soon as well.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that the only "hate speech" that will be suppressed is speech that the ruling powers hate.
What hate speech is and what not, is actually defined in laws. Moron.
And if it is prosecuted or not is decided by a judge. Moron.
The ruling class has nothing to do with hate speech or not. Moron.
And: insulting/hating/harassing a ruling class member is most likely not hate speech but libel or slander. (Moron?)
Re: (Score:3)
When you talk about mainstream media you mean Fox, correct? They are the number one cable news channel. https://deadline.com/2021/08/f... [deadline.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Which misinformation is it important to combat? (Score:2)
What do you mean who decides? (Score:2)
This is Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
>And who decides?
All together now? or some version of that?
Like the constitution? Or most every law?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter are SO full of shit (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are the two tweets, over which they permanently blocked President Donald Trump:
Hint: if you have to write a whole article [twitter.com] explaining, why something is oh, so offensive, it is not...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here are the two tweets, over which they permanently blocked President Donald Trump:
Hint: if you have to write a whole article [twitter.com] explaining, why something is oh, so offensive, it is not...
The blocking was long overdue.
As for the two tweets the important thing, as always, is context.
Trump spent months riling up supporters with lies about the election and attempts to stay in power, attempts that culminated in an attempted insurrection that resulted in multiple deaths of police officers and rioters, and it very nearly resulted in the deaths of senior political leaders as well. Can you imagine what would have happened if the mob actually got its hands on a few lawmakers? Sure, most were only alo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The gist of my argument is that Quantaman posted two lies — which is impressive for a post as short as his was.
The lies you and him still haven't acknowledged — much less apologized for...
Re: (Score:2)
Today we examine the claims, most recently made by a Slashdot user identified as "quantaman" (public assistance in revealing his real identity is requested)
You're seriously trying to dox people for disagreeing with you on /. now?
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple deaths of police and others and almost the executions of senior politicians? Are you AOC? Lol.
Police officers and rioters died on January 6. That is a fact.
As for senior politicians "nearly" dying, that might be debatable, but there is no question the crowd appeared to be after blood. They brought a gallows with them, FFS. And that's not all:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p... [pbs.org]
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.... [cbslocal.com]
You guys do not know what insurrection really is. You will find out eventually.
Wow. Just wow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't ban him over those two tweets. They banned him for hundreds of tweets that lead a large number of people to believe that he would support an armed insurgency.
He was the president, his words carried a lot of weight and he was irresponsible with them.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole organization should have been banned.
You think Anonymous and Antifa are organizations too, right?
They're powerful specifically because of the lack of organization. Organization used to be a strength, and it still is if you can manage security, but most can't in the modern age and it's therefore a weakness.
There are organizations associated with all of these things (even Anonymous, people do often work in groups) but what they all have in common is that they are primarily an idea, not an org.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning him was the most entertaining move ever. Watch the child cry when his toy was taken away. He started his own "free speech" blog called From The Desk of... but it was shutdown after a month because nobody read it. He also didn't allow comments for some reason...
That is not why they banned Trump (Score:2, Redundant)
They banned Trump because of incitement to violence. It wasn't a single tweet. It was many, many over many years, followed by his weak response on Jan 6th.
Don't get me wrong, Twitter wasn't taking a stand here. They're a corporation. They'd feed babies into a woodchipper if it was a) profitable and b) legal. They banned him because they were afraid of the legal liability the next time he pulled a "won't someo
Re: That is not why they banned Trump (Score:2)
> They'd feed babies into a woodchipper if it was a) profitable and b) legal.
Not so much. Replace b with "thought they could get away with it" and you're closer to the truth. Companies like Twitter only care about legality when there are either monetary consequences likely to exceed the profits from breaking the law, or when executives will obviously face actual consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
'20: Dissent is Sedition
I haven't seen anyone say anything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad it doesn't allow you to understand pretext.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can elect any shitstain you want. That doesn't mean a private company needs to subject their readership to their nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
You can make any website you want. That doesn't mean a private ISP company needs to subject their subscribers to their nonsense.
That has nothing to do with this, because Twitter is not an ISP. Many of us would agree with you however that an ISP shouldn't be allowed to censor if they want to avoid liability, because they are your carrier. On the flip side of that argument, many of us want ISPs to filter out some "content", specifically unwanted packets coming our way from known malicious sources. Even if I am not concerned about security issues as a result of this traffic, I don't want it clogging up my link.
Regardless, Twitter is no
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are finally admitting some truth. He was elected to fuck things up instead of operating a branch of the government competently.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>"He was elected to fuck things up instead of operating a branch of the government competently."
Ha! As opposed to what? This s**t-show we have right now? Have you totally ignored the Afghanistan or southern border situations?
Trump had a loud, strange, crass, and sometimes rude and even inappropriate way of communicating, but none of his *policies* were that bad.
CensorBook (Score:2)
Censorship dialling up to 11. (Score:2)
It's not just Germany going full 1984, Australia are trying to prevent people even from discussing protests [twitter.com] with their friends and family. Sickening is the word.
Re: (Score:2)
>Australia are trying to prevent people even from discussing protests [twitter.com] with their friends and family. Sickening is the word.
Of course that video makes me wonder what they suspect him of possibly planning and also why they felt the need to knock on his door in particular. Do you think they could be they're just doing their job.
don't go to it (Score:3)
If you don't like the content of a website, just don't go to it. It is like moving to a house next to a pig farm and expect the pig farmer to quit raising pigs because you don't like the smell. Should not have moved there to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is like moving to a house next to a pig farm and expect the pig farmer to quit raising pigs because you don't like the smell. Should not have moved there to begin with.
This is happening:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Reaction was a bit over the top: https://www.marketplace.org/20... [marketplace.org]
But I tend to agree.
> If you don't like the content of a website, just don't go to it.
Gets harder with social media and "whatsapp" spam. Unless you become a recluse, you will in some form interact with the great soc
Federal Elections (Score:2)
Vote against parties that support censorship.
But better stay away from the AfD if you dislike Nazis. The AfD is only against censorship when they are being censored, while they'll gladly make lists of people who speak out against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote against parties that support censorship. :P
We do not have censorship in Germany.
And the only party, that might be in favour for it, is the AFD you mention
You have a mental problem distinguishing hate speech - and the laws against it - from censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Excerpt:
Source: https://www.t-online.de/digita... [t-online.de]
Certainly rude, and I'd think that a person who uses those words is a fucking idiot that I won't waste time and energy on. But what the fuck makes this illegal in any regard?
I mean look at your own comment that uses an ad hominem attesting me mental problems for not being able t
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know of any other contemporary party in Germany that installed a web portal where people were supposed to report teachers that speak out against the anti-science bullshit the AfD perpetuates.
As far as supporting free speech goes, there's parties that support the right to speech regardless of where it comes from. But they usually do not get to govern.
Still, since Germany neither has Gerrymandering nor First Past the Post voting, the parliament is usually populated by a handful of pa
Facebook... (Score:2)
Always difficult to cleary define "hate speech". (Score:4, Interesting)
I would rather see hate speech than see censorship and I prefer the laws to tilt strongly in that direction
Well, try harder (Score:2)
How about you know, building some tanks and taking over facebook/google etc by force? that definitively will end hate speech
Back door to GDPR? (Score:3)
How does Germany reconcile the EU GDPR and the right for users to opt out of any personally identifiable information by companies, with this new regulation requiring the company to collect PII on all users in case they need to report them? Is this new anti-hate speech legislation a back door which will allow (or even require) Facebook and others to collect as much personal information as possible on everyone, in case someone posts something questionable and they need to report to the government?
Re: Back door to GDPR? (Score:2)
Yes, but in order to give this information to the government, companies like Facebook first have to collect it. This law seems to say companies will now be obligated to collect information about users so that if any user ever posts anything questionable, this personal information can be handed to the government. If there is no option for users to exclude themselves from the data collection, it seems it violates GDPR.
The law is for everyone (Score:2)
Another loophole, they say, is that smaller platforms like the messaging app Telegram,
And how do the loopholers come to that retarded idea?
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't worry about the anti-vaxxers, they seem to be on a self-correcting course:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t... [nbcnews.com]
That is to say, their numbers should decline in time.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Germans want to be Nazis again as it seems, then we could make sure of this by encouraging them to send antivaxxers for showers.
Re: (Score:2)
Their fuhrers seem to think that they get to make decisions on what the rest of the world is allowed to say. Hitler would be proud.
Re: (Score:2)
We got more than 20 years of covid vaccine experiments. None passed animal trials.
Humans are an animal. The Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines all passed human trials. Your entire premise has been proven false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid is a measure of how poorly a person uses their intelligence and skills. In this case, these doctors are stupid cunts. So yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfizer received the biggest fine in U.S. history of $2,300,000,000 in 2009 for “bribing doctors and suppressing adverse trial results”.
And an event from 2009 has what todo with a vaccine that is scientifically been proven safe in 2021?
Re:Welcome to USA-USSR (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. The demon sperm woman has a medical license and so does the woman who stuck spoons on her face saying the vaccine made her magnetic. I can find people saying the earth is flat. Meanwhile the ancient greeks managed to measure the earths circumference.
Re: (Score:2)
The ancient Greeks knew a lot, but they didn't know about germ theory. A discussion of what they knew isn't really all that relevant to what's going on now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Just because somebody is an MD doesn't mean they aren't capable of being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch TV.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, nobody knows if these products are safe in the long run.
You’re right I predict 100% mortality rate for everyone that has taken the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are. But it's ok, you don't need to vaccinate all your kids.
Only the ones you want to keep.
Re: (Score:2)
They are. But it's ok, you don't need to vaccinate all your kids.
Only the ones you want to keep.
The UK government disagrees with this perspective.
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
>"They are. But it's ok, you don't need to vaccinate all your kids. Only the ones you want to keep."
Statistics and science strongly disagree with that statement. Unvaccinated kids are at EXTREMELY low risk of dying from COVID-19. In fact, they are at no greater risk, on average, than the seasonal flu's they have been exposed to every year they have lived.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not at a risk of dying from it, but they can be infected and can become a spreading vector. And considering that kids are very social creatures, more so than most adults, the spreading speeds up considerably every time you have them together. Take a look at the infection numbers and you will see a correlation with the times schools are open and kids are required to be present at schools.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with anything you just said. Although children are also known to be poor spreaders of COVID-19.
But given how spreadable the delta variant is, I don't think it matters (children spreading it) because it is very probable most everyone will be exposed to it regardless of what we do. Being vaccinated stops alpha, but only slows delta a little from spreading. It is likely everyone will be exposed to delta long before some new vaccine comes out that would target delta better.
Adults can choose
Re: (Score:2)
Although children are also known to be poor spreaders of COVID-19
That I'd like some numbers to. Because the spike after every single school holiday suggests otherwise.
And as stated in other context, no vaccine is 100% fool proof. There is always a risk remaining, and with an infection vector literally in your house, your chance is still nonzero, even if you're vaccinated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>"Wrong. R0 of 7 says EVERYONE ELSE is at peril because they are not vaccinated."
Not wrong.
1) We were talking about harm to children, not "everyone else."
2) Your "R" number is across all population.
3) Children are actually poor spreaders of the pathogen (which is unusual) compared to adults.
4) The delta variant spreads much better than alpha, so regardless of vaccination status, it is likely most everyone is going to be exposed to it before new vaccines are created, regardless of what we do.
5) The only p
Re: (Score:2)
Schools just started. Give it a month.
Re: Welcome to USA-USSR (Score:2, Informative)
Nice to see the ignorant true believers are out in force. If you are under the age of 45, are not immunocompromised or diabetic, and are not morbidly obese, you are significantly better off not getting the vaccine and instead waiting to contract covid. If you are between the ages of 45 and 65 and do not fall into the other categories above, you could get the vaccine, or you could wait for to contract covid. On the one hand, you are at elevated risk from Covid compared to the under 45s, but the increased res
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you keep believing that. I need people to keep the infection numbers up so I can continue to enjoy my home office.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the 700,000 person study out of Israel, one of if not the most vaccinated country in the world, showing a 27 times lesser susceptibility to showing significant symptoms on reinfection with COVID, is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I haven't seen that.
How about breaking it down by age and add in the impact of comorbidities.
You see, what works for 70 year olds with other conditions may nonetheless be a bad choice for healthy young people.
Given COVID impacts are highly significantly correlated to age, it would be criminal to discount then when making a medical decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's do some simple maths.
Set A to 'chance of dying from covid while unvaccinated'
Set B to 'chance of dying from covid while vaccinated'
Set C to 'chance of dying from vaccine'
if A B + C, don't vaccinate.
See if you can get accurate numbers to plug into that formula for under 18s.
Hint: in the UK B alone is higher than A for under 50s. Drop it to under 18s and add in C and.. well, who do you want to keep?
Re: (Score:2)
Doh.
If A 'is less than' B + C, don't vaccinate.
Silly site stripping the less-than symbol.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget to factor in the infection vector that unvaccinated kids are. The kids themselves won't die. But their parents are potentially at risk. And I sure as fuck don't want to pay for someone else's kids because the kid killed their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a lot more difficult to factor in.
But bear in mind that their parents are probably under 50, almost certainly under 60, so their parents are at exceedingly low risk too.
Especially if they've been vaccinated. Unless the vaccine doesn't work, in which case why are we stabbing children?
Re: (Score:2)
No vaccine in the history of vaccination worked 100%. How could it? You're dealing with living organisms that are by no means in any way standardized. Some people don't develop antibodies. In some people the body "forgets" too quickly. What you can get is 90-95%. Tops.
But that's ok, provided that the infection chain can be broken too. This is where vaccination numbers come into play. You know the saying about knowing everyone in the world in about 5 steps. So you know A, A knows B, B knows C and so on. But
Re: (Score:2)
Great, the more people do it, the more the unemployment rate drops.
Re: (Score:2)
I know. But I can't change it. So I can as well try to find the good side in it.
If you can't fight them, use them.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's what you think, then don't take it. But also, please observe the following if you get covid:
- Do not accept monoclonal antibodies. If you don't trust vaccines, you really shouldn't trust this as it is far more invasive and dangerous than a vaccine, and you'll save taxpayer money as it is also a lot more expensive
- Do not go to the ICU. Too many anti-vaxxers are ending up in the hospital and have literally caused people with other medical conditions to die due to a lack of space. Please stay home,
Re: (Score:2)
>"Too many anti-vaxxers are ending up in the hospital and have literally caused people with other medical conditions to die due to a lack of space. Please stay home, or alternatively seek hospice care."
That is not true. There is no wide-spread hospital space shortage, other than created by the vaccine mandate scaring away staff.
Re: (Score:3)
>"A number of states have recently reported literally running out of ICU beds."
Hospitals are designed to run near close to full occupancy as possible and will actually put ICU beds out of service when needed, it has to do with reimbursement. So "running out of beds" is a more complicated than most sensationalist media reports would make it seem. Beds can often be opened pretty quickly when needed. From the reports I have seen, this "out of beds" thing is way overblown.
Re:Welcome to USA-USSR (Score:4, Informative)
There is no secrecy to it, the research has been published and it's quite conclusive that vaccines work.
Honestly I really don't give a shit what you think about the majority of us who actually follow empirical science and choose to vaccinate. I'm actually used to dealing with morons like you. I've been downmodded to hell on slashdot for years for speaking favorably about GMO in the face of the greenpeace hippies who think their anecdotes point to a more correct conclusion than hard data. Yet I still persist anyways. You're no different from them, just another retarded activist who thinks he's an insider on some secret knowledge about some dumb conspiracy theory. Though unlike them, your kind are dying off, which makes this easier.
Re: (Score:2)
These products are unsafe, and increase the risk of death compared to the virus itself:
Let’s check the scores.
Number of deaths due to vaccine: 0
Number of deaths due to the virus: 4,756,127 and counting.
Re: (Score:2)
Number of deaths due to vaccine: 0
I'm genuinely curious.
Are you truly so fucking stupid that you actually believe this, or are you intentionally lying to us, in which case why?
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths due to Covid vaccines: 0
Deaths do to Covid-19 virus: 4,756,227
Looks like the virus has a commanding lead. Will the virus be able to keep this shutout?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An open snapshot of COVID VACCINE VAERS: https://twitter.com/OpenVAERS [twitter.com]
COVID VACCINE CAUSED DEATHS = 0 (USA ONLY)
VAERS is known to be under-reported by a factor of 10x to 100x
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
VAERS data doesn't indicate that anybody died or was even so much as given a sore arm by the COVID vaccine. It's just a record of things that have happened to people since receiving the vaccine. The vaccine would literally have to turn you into an immortal in order for that number to show zero.
The only unsafe junk around here is you and your kind's dumb ass logic.
Re: (Score:2)
With this kind of data, you could get made up statistical results like this one:
"Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1. In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! "
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD... [twitter.com]
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
VAERS is at ~15000 covid vaccines related death.
I'm really wondering if you are self-aware enough to realize that there is a difference between "vaccines related death" and "death caused by the vaccine." And if you changed from the latter to the former on purpose.
People who think VAERS matters in that sense are deluding themselves. It's an early warning system with many false positives.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what I find telling is you like to pick out all of these numbers, and instead of citing actual research, you liberally cite twitter, aka the world's biggest rumor mill. It says a lot about you that you base your life decisions off of rumors and speculation
Re: (Score:2)
VAERS data 0 covid deaths CAUSED by the vaccine.
Yes people who look at the numbers and draw conclusion vaccines causes tens of thousands of deaths are making an error in judgement.
Then again drawing the opposite conclusion is also problematic for many of the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
>> "VAERS is at ~15000 covid vaccines related death."
>"there is a difference between "vaccines related death" and "death caused by the vaccine." [...] People who think VAERS matters in that sense are deluding themselves. It's an early warning system with many false positives.
One can say the same thing about the number of COVID-19 deaths. Tons of them were people who tested positive but COVID-19 was either not their cause of death or was just a complication of a very serious illness. And the numbe
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need any papers. The numbers speak for themselves https://apnews.com/article/cor... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of comparison, the US Army which followed the CDC guidance faced around 20 covid related deaths in 2020.
Thanks for proving the government right. Now the US Military has quite a few vaccine mandates predating the new Covid vaccine mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
And furthermore, did you know that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the troops who Washington ordered vaccinated against smallpox are now dead?
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting (yet predictable) part is that companies only publicly object in liberal societies.
An obvious solution is to ban their objections.
If censorship isn't solving Germany's problems, they aren't using enough. They should look to Joeseph Goebbels for inspiration. He didn't pussyfoot around.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has a long history of censorship, mainly to prevent people being lied to about their history, and to prevent modern Nazis promoting their ideas.
It appears to have worked. Germany is fairly liberal and open, and has a strong democracy with a variety of political views represented. Quality of life is high, they are culturally diverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Like any tool, censorship can be used to do good things. However, some tools are inherently more dangerous than others. We all agree that private citizens shouldn't have nuclear ICBMs, because the risk is simply too high for the benefit offered. Similarly, handing censorship powers to the government in the form of this law with little to no checks or balances is beyond reckless. It's only a matter of time before someone starts abusing it (and indeed it may have started already).
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to "resist". Just don't distribute the app to Germany.