Germany passes #NetzDG law illegal content must be deleted in 24hrs

or face fines of up to 50m euros

[nonstop]

From October, Facebook, YouTube, and other sites with more that two million users in Germany must take down posts containing hate speech or other criminal material within 24 hours.

Social media companies in Germany face fines of up to 50m euros ($57.1; £43.9m) if they fail to remove "obviously illegal" content in time.

Content that is not obviously unlawful must be assessed within seven days.

[bbc.co.uk...]

[engine]

That's going to be tough to manage in such short notice!

[heisje]

High time. Many web corporations, notably American, are not good global citizens and persistently behave below moral and legal expectations. If they are unwilling/unable to self-regulate, they will face the music.

Expect more to come.
High time too.

.

[keyplyr]

I'm sure that enormous $57 fine will cripple Facebook :)

[lucy24]

Well, if it's $57m per event it could add up.

Idle query: What happens when two countries have mutually exclusive laws?

[tangor]

Do you have to have 2 million eyeballs to qualify for this ruling, or can the small fry ignore it?

[keyplyr]

Well, if it's $57m per event it could add up

Nonstop posted "$57.1" (no "m") hence my post.

[tangor]

followed by a pound number in mill... Seemed obvious, keyplyr....

[keyplyr]

That's the point Tangor and the source of the humor.

[tangor]

Hmmm.... okay. :) (the rest of us saw millions, you saw 57 bucks)

[keyplyr]

No Tangor, again... it was humor. In the future I'll be sure to add the "jk."

[tangor]

Golly gee... did you not see the :) ?

Nothing personal, just more fun!

[lucy24]

Nonstop posted "$57.1" (no "m") hence my post.

Heh, I just assumed you were saying that $57.1m would be peanuts for FB.

:: shuffling papers ::

That makes two consecutive threads which put me in mind of this [xkcd.com].

[ChanandlerBong]

If there was any real sense to this new law, the last 7 posts of this thread would be flagged for deletion too.

[mack]

So, how are they going to prove a service had 2 000 000 users from within Germany?

I agree with the law in principle, but time scale and the fine do seem a bit "out there".

Mack.

[jmccormac]

So, how are they going to prove a service had 2 000 000 users from within Germany?

Big companies like Facebook tend to release press releases about how well they are doing and how many users they have in each country. They wouldn't be lying, would they? :) It looks like mad legislation by politicians who can barely turn on their iPhones.

Regards...jmcc

[lucy24]

Ooh, good one. “We will stipulate that the defendant’s claims about usage levels are accurate” (even though for other purposes we wouldn’t believe them for a minute).

[Shaddows]

Yey, a judgement I can fully endorse! Sensible user requirements to limit it to big players, and sensible policy regarding dealing with infringements - time-limited removal, rather than ensuring it is never published.

It is frankly disgusting that tech companies can look, walk and quack like a publisher, but not be bound by the laws governing publishers. These giants have wider reach and more influence than paper publishers, yet claim they are like cable companies; merely a conduit. It is about time laws caught up with reality.

[koan]

Shaddows, there's a difference between content written by employees with editorial reviews and user generated content at a huge scale. The latter is a recent phenomena in the media world, and the only way to supervise is with the help of other users flagging troublesome content.

[Shaddows]

the only way to supervise is with the help of other users flagging troublesome content.

Absolutely!

The law has to be sensible. Editorial process means paper publishers are required to never publish anything they are not prepared to defend in court. Once it is published, they are liable. Although the offended party may allow a withdrawal and apology, they are not obliged to do so, and can pursue any legal remedy available, including fines or imprisonment.

New Media does not have an editorial process as such, so the law governing them needs to be reasonable, and enforceable. Requiring them to comply with the same legal standards with regards to content, but making it contingent on it being reported and allowing a short time to act, is exactly the proportionate response that I feel is appropriate.

Yes, it will cost money. They will have to build the cost into their business model, just like any other business does with any other regulatory cost. Good stuff.

[nonstop]

the only way to supervise is with the help of other users flagging troublesome content.

it shouldn't be up to the users to work for free to keep the platform clean so these companies can make billions.

and relying on users is also flawed because the hate speech may only be seen by it's supporters, and so never flagged.

these companies need to take responsibility for the great power that they have.

with great power....comes great responsibility

[JS_Harris]

This is also censorship, the language surrounding who ultimately decides that a story is fake or not is ambiguous at best. These new laws are obviously designed to guide major social networks and not targeted at small websites, unless those sites are deemed "alt-right" at this point. Germany previously published a hit list of "fake" sites and it was plain to see how wildly subjective the list really was.

[J_RaD]

youtube and facebook should pull out of Germany. Europe doesn't have free speech, let them police it, if they don't want to leave.