[Arnt]

You're raising a strawman. Replacing government is not necessary, as Merkel proved by example.

Merkel's government was able to propose law changes and have them be voted on by the legislature. Replacing government was not needed.

[VWWHFSfQ]

I think you have this backwards. Once a government establishes censorship there's no going back from it, and nowhere for private citizens to escape it. Private individuals or companies censoring their own platforms is far less serious since, ideally, there are many ways to legally escape it.

[Arnt]

Actually what I'm saying is that if the voters want either censorship or after-the-speech rules, then establishing that as part of the political process is much better than establishing it by having the same voters (in their capacity as Facebook's customers and audience) push Facebook to do the job. That it could be evaded is IMO irrelevant if it usually isn't. If people largely follow the law and use the legal process, then the law works.

Which you can see in Germany — people use the legal machinery to regulate speech on Facebook. Publish a swastika on Facebook and people will complain about you to the police (perhaps via Facebook), and the prosecutor will apply the law of the land. That you could evade it is true, that most people trust the law is significant.

[VWWHFSfQ]

You think that the "voters" should decide what is acceptable speech. Just by consensus, "acceptable free speech" can be determined by 60% of the people in the society.

Merkel's government proved nothing. Certainly not that government-mandated censorship is any more altruistic than regular government censorship.

There's a strong fear right now that the EU countries are devolving right back into their old authoritarian ways.