Archive | social media

»Fake news« overhyped?

Our study of search and politics in seven nations – which surveyed the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain in January 2017 – found these concerns to be overstated, if not wrong. In fact, many internet users trust search to help them find the best information, check other sources and discover new information in ways that can burst filter bubbles and open echo chambers. (…)

We found that the fears surrounding search algorithms and social media are not irrelevant – there are problems for some users some of the time. However, they are exaggerated, creating unwarranted fears that could lead to inappropriate responses by users, regulators and policymakers.

The Conversation » Fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles: Underresearched and overhyped »

0

EU AVMSD: It’s not censorship to censor legal content

The EU is in the process of updating the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

As one could expect, this opens the floodgates when it comes to regulating and censoring content such as video (and even animated GIF:s) on a number of platforms. This includes otherwise legal content.

Today the EU E-Commerce Directive gives service providers and platforms some reasonable protection. EDRi explains…

That Directive protects freedom of expression by ensuring that internet companies are not unduly incentivised to delete content. It does so by limiting liability to situations where they fail to act diligently upon receipt of a notice of the illegality of the content in question.

But with the revised AVMSD things might change…

The Council and the Parliament want a wide variety of content to be regulated – anything that (based on the wisdom of the provider, in the first instance) might impact the physical, mental and moral development of minors. At the same time, video-sharing and (some) social media platforms are expected to restrict content that is an “incitement to violence or hatred” by reference, for example, to sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation.

The content that the providers will be required to regulate is not, or not necessarily, illegal. As a result, it is argued that this privatised regulation of freedom of expression does not breach the E-Commerce Directive, because the obligation is to regulate content. In short, restriction of legal content is not a breach of rules that cover illegal content.

So… according to EU logic, it’s not censorship if you censor legal content?

The Council also wants video-sharing and social media platforms to regulate live-streamed video.

This revision is turning into a mess. And for once it’s not the copyright industry that is pushing the changes. It’s politicians – aiming to regulate what you can or cannot say (or even joke about).

If this becomes law, platforms like Youtube and Facebook will have to introduce new terms and conditions narrowing down the scope of what is acceptable for users to upload. Doing so, they most certainly will be overly cautious – to stay on the safe side when it comes to EU regulation.

It all boils down to the EU – once again – pushing private companies to use their terms and conditions to limit in other ways legal free speech.

EDRi: AVMS Directive: It isn’t censorship if the content is mostly legal, right? »

/ HAX

0

German social media law under fire

Professor Schulz criticises the fact that the draft law covers a range of different types of offences, making it difficult to assess its necessity as a means of restricting freedom of speech. More damningly, he points to the key assumptions on which the law is based, arguing that they have been abandoned “for a long time”. Furthermore, he argues that “there are many effective ways of addressing fake news or hateful speech” that should be [implicitly, were not] taken into account to minimise potential negative effects on freedom of speech”.

EDRi: German Social Media law – sharp criticism from leading legal expert »

GNI: Proposed German Legislation Threatens Free Expression Around the World »

0

Freedom of expression under attack in Germany

Minister Maas has proposed the law which places a variety of obligations on the companies, in the apparent hope that this will lead profit-motivated companies to take over private censorship measures. Following years of deletions of perfectly legal content by, for example, Facebook, Minister Maas seems to believe that this will lead to outcomes that are appropriate in a democratic society based on the rule of law. (…)

Another addition to the draft law is a procedure to prohibit the distribution of pornography. The effects on group chats, such as WhatsApp which might also be affected by the law, depending on the scope, will be interesting as partially public exchanges of legal content such as pornography would suddenly become the focus of deletions. (…)

In total, 24 criminal offences have been added to the latest draft, including counterfeiting and fake news for the purpose of treason against the nation, defamation of the state and its symbols, as well as insults to the Federal President.

EDRi: Reckless social media law threatens freedom of expression in Germany »

Zerohedge: Germany Passes Bill To Fine FaceBook, Twitter Up To $50MM For “Fake News” »

Related, EU Observer: Germany calls for EU laws on hate speech and fake news »

0

EU censorship of social media launched

A database set up jointly by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube aims to identify “terrorist and radicalising” content automatically and to remove it from these platforms. (…)

It appears that no research whatsoever has been done on the likely impact of this initiative, including no review mechanisms on its impact and no way of establishing whether the initiative has counter-productive effects. (…)

The role of judicial and law enforcement authorities in this process has, unsurprisingly, not been mentioned.

EDRi: Social media companies launch upload filter to combat “terrorism and extremism” »

0

»Liking« on Facebook ends up in court

In Switzerland, the first trial based on likes on Facebook is currently underway. According to The Local, a 45-year-old from Zurich has been charged with defamation for liking Facebook posts that accused the plaintiff of being anti-Semitic. So basically, a man is being prosecuted for liking something somebody else posted.

The absurdity.

The Next Web: Swiss man sued for ‘liking’ Facebook posts that called a convicted racist a racist »

The Local.ch: Man faces court for ‘liking’ Facebook posts »

0

Facebook, Twitter asked to help Pakistani government to sentence people to death

Pakistan has asked Facebook and Twitter to help identify Pakistanis suspected of blasphemy so it can prosecute them or pursue their extradition.

Under the country’s strict blasphemy laws, anyone found to have insulted Islam or the prophet Muhammad can be sentenced to death.

The Guardian: Pakistan asks Facebook and Twitter to help identify blasphemers »

0

EU vs. social media on consumer rights

It is not acceptable that EU consumers can only call on a court in California to resolve a dispute. Nor can we accept that users are deprived of their right to withdraw from an online purchase. Social media companies also need to take more responsibility in addressing scams and fraud happening on their platforms.

• Reuters: EU authorities demand changes from Facebook, Google, Twitter »
• Engadget: EU orders Facebook and Google to prevent consumer scams »

0

German anti hate-law announced

The past week, German government put forward its controversial bill to fight online hate speech – threatening social platforms with fines up to € 50 million.

Politico:

Under the rules proposed, social media companies must clearly explain rules and complaint procedures to users and follow up on each complaint. Blatantly illegal content must be deleted within 24 hours, while other law-breaking content must be taken down or blocked within seven days.

Politico: Germany unveils law with big fines for hate speech on social media »

0

The »EU Internet Forum« and transparency

How the EU set up a private-public forum to censor the Internet – and denied EDRi access to documents, as it would expose the bureaucracy’s »decision-making process«.

Which pretty much is the whole idea. You should not have extrajudicial censorship, especially not without democratic accountability.

EDRi: The tale of the fight for transparency in the EU Internet Forum »

0