Facebook Truth Police: Who's Regulating the Regulators?

Mike Mish Shedlock

The New York Times claims Facebook police show Germany learned a history lesson.

The NYT says Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning From Its Own History of Hate.

Security is tight at this brick building on the western edge of Berlin. Inside, a sign warns: “Everybody without a badge is a potential spy!”

Spread over five floors, hundreds of men and women sit in rows of six scanning their computer screens. All have signed nondisclosure agreements. Four trauma specialists are at their disposal seven days a week.

They are the agents of Facebook. And they have the power to decide what is free speech and what is hate speech.

This is a deletion center, one of Facebook’s largest, with more than 1,200 content moderators.

Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law, has become a laboratory for one of the most pressing issues for governments today: how and whether to regulate the world’s biggest social network.

In the country of the Holocaust, the commitment against hate speech is as fierce as the commitment to free speech. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is only available in an annotated version. Swastikas are illegal. Inciting hatred is punishable by up to five years in jail.

Companies that systematically fail to remove “obviously illegal” content within 24 hours face fines of up to 50 million euros.

Every day content moderators in Berlin, hired by a third-party firm and working exclusively on Facebook, pore over thousands of posts flagged by users as upsetting or potentially illegal and make a judgment: Ignore, delete or, in particularly tricky cases, “escalate” to a global team of Facebook lawyers with expertise in German regulation.

On Dec. 31, the day before the new law took effect, a far-right lawmaker reacted to an Arabic New Year’s tweet from the Cologne police, accusing them of appeasing “barbaric, Muslim, gang-raping groups of men.”

The request to block a screenshot of the lawmaker’s post wound up in the queue of Nils, a 35-year-old agent in the Berlin deletion center. His judgment was to let it stand. A colleague thought it should come down. Ultimately, the post was sent to lawyers in Dublin, London, Silicon Valley and Hamburg. By the afternoon it had been deleted, prompting a storm of criticism about the new legislation, known here as the “Facebook Law.”

For 24 hours, the post kept Facebook lawyers from Silicon Valley to Hamburg busy. The Dublin team decided that the post did not violate community standards but sent it on for legal assessment by outside lawyers hired by Facebook in Germany.

Within hours of news that the German police were opening a criminal investigation into Ms. von Storch over her comments, Facebook restricted access to the post. The user who reported the content was notified that it had been blocked for a violation of section 130 of the German criminal code, incitement to hatred. Ms. von Storch was also notified too.

Absurd Irony

The New York Times claims "The commitment against hate speech is as fierce as the commitment to free speech."

Say what? a Commitment to free speech? Are you nuts?

It now takes a team of lawyers to decide to decide what is or isn't hate speech. Step over the line and you can get a €50 million fine.

Beatrix von Storch is a German politician who has served as Deputy Leader of the Alternative for Germany since July 2015 and Member of the Bundestag since September 2017.

Check out her alleged crime.

What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is an official police account tweeting in Arabic? Do you think that will appease the barbaric murdering Muslim group-raping gangs of men?” asked von Storch.

For that we have a criminal investigation with teams of lawyers in two cities debating those sentences.

By the way, von Storch made her comments the day before Germany's hate speech law went into effect.

The New York Times says Germany learned a history lesson.

What the hell lesson is that?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (20)
No. 1-20
Gasmire
Gasmire

Did anyone wet their pants?

hmk
hmk

Coming to a country near you. The government can decide whats nice and whats naughty. It is not that they want to control what you can think and say its just for the best. You know for the greater good. That will be on the next democrat platform with help from google and Facebook so we can all vote for whom they think is best suited for the greater good. They will have help from the new Hitler youth from the Parkland shooting.

Tengen
Tengen

The world should carefully observe the divergent paths of Germany and Japan post WW2. Japan apologized for nothing, whereas the Germans have never stopped apologizing, with no end in sight more than 70 years later.

The merit of apologizing for past atrocities is immaterial to the overall discussion. The point is, as Germany has clearly shown, once you start apologizing, you can never stop. This eventually culminates in small children being taught they're bad people because of the crimes of their great-great-great grandparents.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

Psyche control is in full swing. It's only going to increase, there's no going back now. Information is filtered and controlled.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

Remember, after Fukishima the Germans were so fearful they even banned an episode of the Simpsons where there was a meltdown. This is not guilt for the past. It's fear of possible futures.

thimk
thimk

I guess free speech is not so "free".

Onni4me
Onni4me

There is no such thing as regulated free speech. The question is, what the politicians and powers-that-be are so afraid of? The truth emerging through social media? Well, if direct words don't work, there is always alternative wordings that everyone knows what they mean but they can't be claimed to be "hate speech". In the good ol' USSR citizens were very skilled at this. My question is are we heading towards such a tyranny once again? Soviet citizens
had a very particular humor like the famous Radio Yerevan jokes: Radio Yerevan was asked: “Is it true that Adam and Eve were the first communists?”
Radio Yerevan answered: “Probably, yes. They both dressed very sparingly, they had modest requirements toward food, they never had their own house, and on top of all that, they believed that they were living in the paradise.” https://johnkutensky.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/radio-yerevan-jokes/

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

Do you think Mish should be allowed to block anybody who is abusive or presents opinions you disagree with?

Q: Mish, have you ever blocked anybody from this board, and do you reserve the right to?

RonJ
RonJ

The irony is that it creates the impression of Ms von Storch being assaulted by speech Nazis.

Mike6712
Mike6712

The same liberal newspapers that are hostile to the concept of Free Speech also want to disarm the same public whose speech they wish to censor, delete and control.

Mike6712
Mike6712

Please do not mistake or pretend that their contempt for your Free Speech has nothing to do with their desire to disarm you, because both issues are VERY MUCH intertwined with one another.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

I own this website and I can do anything I like with it. Your question is idiotic and has nothing to do with free speech unless of course you believe strangers are entitled to free speech in your bedroom at midnight.

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

Amusingly defensive. Some simple yes/no answers would have sufficed. Touched a sore point did I. Poor baby.

Do you hold the same opinion for colleges who insist on pronoun etiquette (e.g. Jordan Peterson's boo-hoo moments in Toronto) or decide who can/who can't speak on their campuses?

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

Not really. But you keep thinking that if it makes you happy. Mish can't even distinguish between "Global Economics" and "Global Politics". One of the promises made when moving to the Maven was that the there would be a view of the blog without the political nonsense of all stripes in the "Global Economics" section.

mike3121
mike3121

How is it "amusingly defensive"? He replied to your question like an adult. Your accusation of Mish being overly offended is absurd and childish. If you can't voice your opinion without making logical fallacies, please go away and let the grownups talk.

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

I'm sure Mish can stand up for himself Mike. However it is also amusing that you want to create a little echo chamber for him. I'd wager this is the last thing he wants. He has a good blog on global economics with a good following. The comments are usually of the paranoid right wing variety, so somebody like me will stimulate conversation by presenting a different viewpoint, drive up page hits and thus clicks. That's how it works. Read the Maven's 10Q from Sep 2017 and it describes the business model. I say good luck to Mish monetizing this, and he has probably figured out that lively conversation is likely to draw eyeballs better than an echo chamber of people agreeing every day.

Democritus
Democritus

Dear themonosynaptic, in case you don't understand the issue: this is Mish's territory and he decides who can post here and which posts stay. He may even decide to delete each and every comment! Facebook is Mark Z's territory, so sure he can have stuff deleted at his website. The problem is that governments are fining people for expressing their opinion. That's a completely different issue. If you cannot see the difference, please tell us so that we can provide you with some basic study material.

MorrisWR
MorrisWR

Thousands of people censoring speech they say is hateful. Hell that sounds more like Fascists than anything else (or perhaps 1984). Free speech is dead on social media. All they have to do is cry “hate speech” and snowflakes wet themselves. What a crock.

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

Thanks Democritis. I completely understand the difference between censorship by the owner of the medium vs. government censorship. That was not my question, as you will see if you scroll back. I was asking about Mish's philosophy on censorship on this site. I felt his answer was very defensive, and he took it as some sort of attack, whereas it was just to see how far his tolerance of free speech went. His answer shows that he is quite comfortable with censorship as a practice. So let me ask you the same question - are you OK with private censorship of opinions?


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY