[ak4g]

I find myself self-censoring on topics like this, not because of what I (don't) fear is being done by authorities, but because I can't help but to note that we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia, and that seemingly the surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society, but not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for those numbers by my username.

Meanwhile, there are places that are living in a dystopia, and the single most important goal of the powers that be in those places is undermining the rule of law. So I can't help but be skeptical of stories like this.

We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this, and where criminals can be kept out of the public sphere, and these are good things. There. And hey, tonight at least, for once, I won't go to a throwaway to say so.

[yAnonymous]

>We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this

If anything, cases like this demonstrate how quickly that can change when you soften surveillance and free speech laws. Look at Turkey. Turning a democracy into a dictatorship took only a few years.

The German government, too, is working on establishing a massive censorship complex. How can you tell it's censorship? They don't bother going after the people who make supposedly illegal statements. Instead, they pressure social networks directly to make the statements disappear without any legal process.

Right now, many people are cheering, because it works in their favor, but they're too shortsighted to realize that it'll eventually be used against them, too.

Note that I'm not even saying that certain statements shouldn't be punishable, but in a democracy, there must be a legal process for each and every case. When opinions or money decide what should be censored, it stops being a democratic process.

[germanier]

Sure the German justice goes after people making unlawful postings and entire specialized police units are being established. Charges and successful verdicts regarding internet posts are nothing new at all. However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time. Much to long compared to the speed postings get shared.

[yAnonymous]

It's not the German justice going after it, that's the point. Why would they? They're not looking to punish anyone, but simply make unwanted statements disappear.

Right now, they've appointed a private organization (Arvato) that belongs to the Bertelsmann group, which has a strong lobbying branch and is very close to the government.

So basically, a private corporation is allowed to run its own show on all ends and it'll only get worse when they turn this into a law.

German sources:

https://netzpolitik.org/2016/sz-recherche-so-arbeitet-das-fa...

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-Bertelsma...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time.

That doesn't justify censorship in any way. You sound like a government shill.

[germanier]

How do you explain the countless penalty orders and verdicts over internet posts that were issued in the last thirty years then? People were punished for internet posts that are against the law and will continue to be punished for internet posts.

Arvato was contracted by Facebook to enforce their own terms of service and comply with the law. They are free to contract any company they like to operate on their platform. It's not the government that chose Arvato.

If you think that law is the result of lobbying alone you haven't followed to large public debate that happened over this topic the last year at all.

And please refrain from name-calling. This doesn't make your arguments look any better.

[yAnonymous]

The Arvato team was appointed by Facebook after the German government complained and pressured them into deleting hate speech, without further explanation what exactly that is. They now want to turn that pressure on social networks into law.

Like I said:

>Right now, many people are cheering, because it works in their favor, but they're too shortsighted to realize that it'll eventually be used against them, too.

The problem is that hate speech is the most generic term ever and can be used (and already has been used) to censor anything.

>People were punished for internet posts

Yes, I mentioned that, but they didn't start an investigation against all authors of deleted posts. Millions of posts and pages with millions of followers were deleted without any legal repercussions. If the post is not enough concern to start an official legal investigation, there's no legal ground to delete it.

You are defending censorship. Saying you sound like a government shill is putting it very nicely.

[dagenleg]

Very good post, comrade! Remember to use your primary account when your comments are ideologically sound, this will ensure your Good Citizen points will get properly calculated.

[scribu]

> We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this

What's the use of being able to freely discuss any story if the people who's job is to uncover sensitive stories are silenced?

[alexandercrohde]

This is the point. Many societies have devolved into autocracies with no freedom of speech, proving that it is a constant possibility for us too.

We like to think our Western countries somehow are immune, but without any particular reason. In reality we should worry more due to our technology. If lack of free speech combines with the ability to monitor everyone's speech (through phones, TV, breaking ssl) we will have recreated 1984 quite well.

[codedokode]

There is no need to break SSL. Top Internet companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, WhatsApp) are under US jurisdiction and they have to do whatever US government tells them.

That seems unfair. I am sure there are many governments that would like to get their share of data too.

[pdkl95]

> we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia

At what point along the path to that dystopia are you going to recognize that a problem exists and fight against it? It's far better to detect and try to fix problems before they spiral out of control. If you're waiting until you see a stereotypical Orwellian dystopia, it's too late.

> surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society

Although many people claim surveillance is correlated with safety, there is very little evidence of it having any benefit.

> not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for those numbers by my username.

That's not from a any party line, but instead is probably a reaction by the people trying to prevent a dystopian future. Pretending that problems don't exist just because they are not yet sufficiently terrible is how small problems grow into larger problems.

> is undermining the rule of law.

We've seen a many examples of that in recent times. I you believe the US is properly ruled by laws, you haven't been paying attention. We've had a two-tier justice system for such a long time it's spawned slang phrases such as "driving while black". Hang out with public defenders for a few days if you need any more proof.

[ionised]

> surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society

Evidence?

[ethics_gradient]

Well, there is evidence to the contrary, at least: the lack of success of the NSA mass spying programmes, with experts like Schneier repeatedly showing why such programmes cannot in the near future even be useful for their stated purpose (anti-terrorism), and officials from the government admitting that they didn't really get much out of it - just some taxi driver who could hardly be called a threat.

The evidence that such systems endanger safety, meanwhile, should be obvious to anyone who has read about how surveillance has been used, from totalitarian states to even liberal democracies (even in the somewhat recent US history), as well as knowledge of how quickly the latter could turn into the former.