A memorandum with seven examples and seven proposals.
<\/strong><\/p>\n
The last few months have shown that our democracies can face serious crises of confidence as a result of media-driven polarization. If we want to further protect freedom of expression and fundamental rights, we have a lot of work ahead of us: We need to clarify on a broad basis what \u201charmful content\u201d exactly is and whether and how we should regulate it. We need to clarify if and where freedom of expression has limits. And we need to muster the courage to shape our discourse and media spaces in a meaningful way. To that end, I\u2019d like to offer a few suggestions for discussion..<\/span><\/p>\n ..<\/span> And yet: I have never met anyone who maintains such a radically open position on prolonged reflection.<\/p>\n So does the call for freedom of expression only serve to enforce one\u2019s own worldview? Is the \u201cfreedom of the dissenter\u201d really as important to us as we claim? [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n \u201cWe are more than three million people. A sea of red, white and blue.\u201d With euphoria, U.S. veteran Ashli Babbitt bid farewell in a final video message<\/a>, heading towards the Capitol and to her senseless death. Firmly believing she was part of a great revolution, she became a tragic antihero of the uprising against Joe Biden\u2019s confirmation as president. After months of online hate and persistent false claims, she was willing to give her all to the cause. Image: YouTube<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”50px|||||” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n But even for sincere pluralists, there are obvious reasons to curtail freedom of expression and to oppress certain information, images, content, symbols or statements. After all, there is content that is generally considered so harmful that its deletion or even punishment is considered right and generally accepted.<\/p>\n For example, because it …<\/p>\n or perhaps (and here it becomes controversial \u2014 why should one not be allowed to do that?) \u2026<\/p>\n … etc.<\/p>\n Then again, there are often enough reasons not<\/em> to block content that is perceived as harmful.<\/strong><\/p>\n These could be<\/p>\n … etc.<\/p>\n A long list to which I will refer several times later on.<\/p>\n So much is clear, that whatever is so harmful, that our society declares it illegal<\/strong>, may and should be removed from public media. And, vice versa, everything that is not<\/em> illegal is subject to freedom of expression and should thus not be removed.<\/p>\n However, as we shall see, any weighting affects freedom of expression. Any prioritisation is a privilege and any restriction of scope is a form of discrimination. Content that is legal but undesirable<\/strong> can be kept down based on internal guidelines. This soft power of social networks is difficult to control. Yet this is the very mechanism that makes the economics of attention so powerful, as Shoshana Zubhoff describes in her book on Surveillance Capitalism<\/a>. It has the automatic tendency to promote especially absurd or disputed positions, that would normally remain at the edges of society \u2013 which may lead to unwanted radicalisation or a polarisation of the society.<\/p>\n Yet, it is rare to succeed in proving actual content interference or discrimination that is also relevant enough to concern fundamental rights. An obligation of large platforms to maintain a \u201cbalance\u201d would hardly be feasible at the moment. However, it is being discussed in Europe, e.g. through supervision similar to that to which independent public media are subject.<\/p>\n The goal \u2014 I guess everyone can agree on this \u2014 is a tolerant and diverse, but also responsible media world. But who is responsible for it: The public audience? The private platforms with their community standards? Or finally, the judges? All three need to be harmonised: balanced jurisprudence, a public sense of justice and the consent of the corporations. In any case we need a common understanding throughout more or less the entire society. And if that is, that only one of the above-mentioned content categories is defined as so illegal, that an intervention is justified (which I assume), then we need something like regulation. You may call that censorship. Then we need bases for control and decision-making and appropriate measures and action.<\/p>\n And we must ensure that these measures are not being abused. Because every government that slides into totalitarianism will look for reasons to legitimise the deletion of opposition content. It happens every single day. If summoning a \u201cterrorist threat\u201d doesn\u2019t work, one can still try to use copyright law etc.<\/p>\n So, before we venture into this difficult terrain, let\u2019s understand a few more terms. <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|true|true” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n .<\/span> Image:\u00a0Nathan Anderson<\/a> on\u00a0Unsplash<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”50px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n .<\/span> So where do the lines run between ordinary contributions and harmful content, between legitimate criticism and dangerous propaganda? Can we agree on verifiable criteria that are binding? What is satire, what is irony and what is an insult? Which scientific findings may be considered sufficiently certain and which irrelevant or refuted? And don\u2019t these standards change all the time?<\/p>\n In fact, many things are normal today that were considered unthinkable just a few years ago \u2014 and vice versa. Headscarves used to be very common in Europe, today they are highly controversial. Maybe one day we will find photoshopped models obscene, but vulgar expressions completely normal. Those who once saw \u201ca women\u2019s place at home\u201d may now be outraged by their oppression in Arab countries. Perhaps at some point, advertising for sugar will be considered more dangerous than terror propaganda \u2014 which would be perfectly justifiable in terms of the number of victims … \u2014 We don\u2019t know, things are in flux.<\/p>\n That is why freedom of expression should not simply be about consensus or majorities. Rather, it needs the understanding of the majority that dissent is necessary (democracy, pluralism, protection of minorities, rule of law). But it needs a consensus on what kinds of content<\/em> (see above) should not be granted the status of protected opinion. Because they are too destructive or dangerous. This consensus can only apply \u201cuntil further notice\u201c, because history shows that it is often time-bound. .<\/span> But consciousness in the Enlightenment is also conditional: \u201cBeing determines consciousness\u201d taught Marx. And Freud followed up: Our early childhood socialisation determines our subconscious. So even individualists are nothing that they wouldn\u2019t somehow have become. New concepts of political re-education soon followed, from Goebbels\u2019 National Receiver to Mao\u2019s Cultural Revolution. This was countered by a pluralistic humanism that called for a robust democracy.<\/p>\n Until today, the changing influences are massive: whether at home, school, advertising, entertainment, news or social media \u2014 ideas and ideologies are pouring in on us from everywhere. Our culture and identity are changing faster than ever.\u00a0Subcultures and peer groups are available to choose from, sometimes with seductive offers. Those who claim that they want to \u201cshape and invent themselves\u201d are under an illusion.<\/p>\n But perhaps something else is meant: Thinking should not be guided by foreign interests. It should serve the maximum attainable knowledge and not the influence of others. Self-determination can only arise where there is self-awareness and has discovered and formulated its own interests.<\/p>\n Since the internet came into existence, our thinking has changed. It has become networked and accelerated. New ideas chase around the globe and establish clusters of followers. Sometimes this gives rise to almost hermetically sealed bubbles, entire cults or parallel societies. People can no longer perceive a delusion once it surrounds them as naturally as the air they breathe. That is more or less the business model of cults and conspiracy myths.<\/p>\n When we collide with people from such exotic mental worlds, we consider them to be extraterrestrials – incomprehensible morons who apparently do not live on this planet. They seem to be “controlled”, they don’t even think for themselves, but follow a powerful ideology. Like ourselves, presumably \u2014 except that from our point of view, our world of ideas is less extreme, less closed and gives more room to our perceived self-determination.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|true|true” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n .<\/span> Nothing. The channel was still online. However, it had been superseded in the keyword search by other media, some of which reported critically on the campaign and were presumably considered more reputable and relevant by the algorithm. The fans of the campaign felt duped and complained big time. After about a week, the search result had corrected itself and #allesdichtmachen could again be found on top of the search results. Or was it YouTube decision-makers who had a hand in manipulating opinion in the interests of the federal government? Possible, but unlikely, because the videos weren\u2019t that explosive \u2014 and of course not illegal. In my opinion, the advocates of freedom of expression have fallen prey to an illusion of control<\/a>, while the algorithm has simply done its job, regardless.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”50px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There is a lot of ranting about framing<\/em>, which means deliberately putting a fact in a certain light through clever choice of words. Does one speak of \u201cnuclear power\u201d or \u201catomic power\u201d? Of \u201cright-wing extremists\u201d or of \u201cnational conservatives\u201d, of \u201ccommunists\u201d or \u201cleftists\u201d? Unconsciously, we all do it \u2014 keeping in mind that every choice of words has some kind of presupposition or connotation.<\/p>\n All too raw facts and data do not make sense to our brains, but at best lead to sensory overload. Only when they are filtered and put into context, patterns do emerge \u2014 and then these form an overall picture. Of course evaluations, premises and specific questions are being involved. Therefore no such thing as neutral reporting<\/em>\u00a0exists \u2014 at best, a balanced position is feasable. So the question can only be: Who controls our information, the story, the framing? Who do we trust and how often do we become a little suspicious? And honest with ourselves that our knowledge is only relative and acquired and simplified.<\/p>\n \u201cWhere there is mixing and grinding, there is also cheating\u201d says an old country lore. In terms of media, one could say: \u201cWhere there is editing and curating, there is opinion-making\u201d. So framing always takes place, just like evaluation, weighting, selection. There are always interests at work. Be it ideology, economic advantages or simply delivering an interesting story.<\/p>\n But how do we protect ourselves from manipulation and massive fraud?<\/p>\n So media literacy is part of the answer. Books like \u201cThe hype machine<\/a>\u201d or \u201cThe Truth-Seeker\u2019s Handbook: A Science-Based Guide<\/a>\u201d, the occasional reading of fact checks or reports on forum networks and troll factories<\/a> should provide enough background knowledge to protect oneself to some extent against manipulation. But \u2014 is that enough? .<\/span> There is a good reason why an encrypted smartphone should remain just as unobserved as a private word spoken on the beach.\u00a0Because all attempts to systematically break up this privacy will sooner or later lead to a threat to freedom of expression. If today it may be a matter of combating child pornography (as the EU has recently decided), tomorrow it will be terrorist content that must be found. From Kurdish, Catalan or soon perhaps Scottish separatists. Not to speak of Hong Kong democracy activists, Greek investigative journalists, Saudi atheists or German whistleblowers. In a time when one almost attracts attention when one does not have a smartphone, this technology must not be turned against us (Asimov<\/a>).<\/p>\n (Mind you, we are talking about warrantless mass surveillance and weakening of systems. It is understandable that the police are frustrated when some surveillance potentials are not used. Targeted measures, such as intrusion into suspicious groups, are a completely different issue. They can be legitimised by the courts. And by the way, this approach is also more successful.)<\/p>\n Now some people communicate in encrypted chat groups with up to 200,000 loyal followers. We can already speak of a medium<\/strong> there. It makes a difference whether 50 people see a terror propaganda video or tens of thousands. The former is bad (and may also have viral effects), but cannot be prevented if we respect confidentiality \u2014 see above \u2014 except by undercover investigators or whistleblowers. The other is a mass media dissemination of content, which should be open to regulation.<\/p>\n Now, social networks<\/strong> are a hybrid form of private and public communication. Here, a platform provider has the moderator role. In Germany, from a certain size on (number of visitors), he is obliged by law to intervene and block illegal content. It is allowed to have it\u2019s own community standards, but these must comply with the freedom of expression and must not be discriminatory. The practice looks different: As a rule, the terms of use are interpreted narrowly and overblocking often occurs. Even a visible \u00a0nipple (if female!) can ring the alarm bells on Instagram. From my point of view, however, this should mainly apply to accounts that have crossed the threshold of private communication, but this distinction is not made.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n When Amed S. published a series of photo montages on Facebook and Instagram, he certainly knew that not everyone would like them: One motif showed a kiss with Mohamed H., the two were mounted on the background of the Kaaba in Mecca that was decorated with a gay pride flag. Fundamentalist Muslims immediately covered the pictures with hate and anger, including death threats. Especially in Pakistan, the images were often reported as harmful content.\u00a0But instead of recognising that this was a deliberate act of intimidation, Facebook and Instagram closed Amed\u2019s accounts<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 acting exactly in the sense of the islamist anti-gay bullies. Image: private \/ ifw<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” min_height=”1798px” custom_padding=”50px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n .<\/span> The critical point is when there is a serious threat to essential protected assets (see above) or to plural society as a whole. Int this case, the desirable media competence and self-responsibility are no longer enough. When it comes to these values, our information spaces cannot do without regulation \u2014 just like other areas, such as road traffic, environmental protection, urban planning, education or food production. Because the individual is sometimes too selfish, too malicious or simply too stupid to be granted such destructive power via mass media. Even if it sounds downright authoritarian, if we agree that some of the content listed at the beginning is illegal and unacceptable, then we must commit to suppressing it. This is exactly what is meant by a \u201cwell-fortified democracy\u201d.<\/p>\n Regulation of our media is therefore legitimate and<\/em> must also have clear limits.\u00a0But how should this look and function in practice? .<\/span> Everyone is allowed to express their opinion, but can be held responsible afterwards if they violate laws in doing so. The consequences can be confiscation and indexing of the work in question or punishment of the person. (…) A pre-selection by private bodies as to whether contributions are published or not (e.g. in a newspaper editorial office or online forums) is therefore not censorship in the sense of the Basic Law and is unobjectionable under constitutional law. One thing we should certainly not do now is to empower anyone arbitrary to censor our media. But that’s exactly what is happening: the state is demanding that social network platforms delete banned content. If necessary, already at the upload stage. Great: A few random soldiers of fortune of the internet age, who became billionaires with finesse and a lot of chutzpah, decide about our freedom of expression! This is not how we had imagined it. So, a \u201cmoderation\u201d does take place and it\u2019s not subject to any real legal control.\u00a0In the belief that they are always standing up for the good cause, the platforms implement their own house rules as they see fit.\u00a0Deletions are done quickly, but legal action against them is often lengthy. Even one day for an objection can be too long, if we consider election campaigns or flaring conflicts. And: a full deletion will still be noticed, but a weighting, a restriction of coverage, an adjustment of the algorithm can have equally explosive effects.<\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span> We can see every day that it doesn\u2019t work very well. Or rather: Much works well \u2014 but the anger when something is misjudged is justifiably great. It\u2019s not as simple as letting an AI clean out our debate rooms. Content moderators are also often overwhelmed. The effort to do it well would be high and no one wants to pay for the costs. While, on the other hand, nothing less than our freedom of expression is at stake. <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”49px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n .<\/span> In the past it was clear: a phone call is private, a letter to the editor is public. But today we have hybrid forms such as profiles, forums or chat groups in which communication is quasi-private, but potentially with a large impact radius. So when we say a) Anyone who communicates with up to 50 people is subject to full confidentiality of encryption and ePrivacy, including metadata.<\/strong>There you can say and share what you want in a protected space. If there are calls for murder and manslaughter here, you have to hope for a whistleblower. Or good police work with a judicial reservation, because even private spaces are not free of law. Anything else we would have to accept as collateral damage to our freedom of expression. Because we know that it could just as well have been shared on the darknet or at a meeting in the forest, surveillance cannot eradicate evil.<\/p>\n b) Channels that reach an audience of more than 50 people are considered media and are generally subject to public inspection and regulation.<\/strong> Depending on the degree of dissemination and the dangerousness, harmful content (see above) must be taken off the net more or less quickly. (Reporting and reaction times, warnings and filters are dealt with in detail below). A messenger service would then have to limit closed chat groups to 50 people, operators of larger forums would be obliged to moderate. Reporting lines in the major networks are currently awkward and inconsistently designed.<\/strong> What is needed is a uniform process in which it can be stated in a low-threshold, quick and precise manner why a piece of content is illegal and should be removed. Or, as a complaint option, why the post should not be subject to blocking. In this way, a warning can be given after just one or two reports and a verdict can be obtained from the crowd. Soon we will have several judgements this way – and perhaps a reporting war. If the matter is controversial, a qualified person should look at it, and within a short time.<\/p>\n However, this swarm intelligence has one big catch: the sheer amount of harmful material is hardly tolerable for laypeople without filtering. Hordes of content moderators (\u201ccleaners<\/a>\u201d) risk their mental health to protect us from beheading videos and images of child abuse. This work is unbearable; within months, these people are finished. One hope lies in AI, but it currently makes more mistakes than would be permissible in terms of freedom of expression. It is not for nothing that we have always fought against upload filters. Are we lying to ourselves here? Low-threshold objection options, in combination with a better-trained AI, could be a solution in the long term. But the topic remains explosive. The question of storing “training material” alone is difficult to answer ethically. There are methods to assess the quality of accounts, their internet karma<\/em>.<\/strong> Freshly opened, few followers \u2014 this account should not be trusted with authoritative judgements. Many warnings for harmful content, possibly belonging to a closed ring \u2014 obvious troll accounts could be given a fair warning. With time penalties, less reach, less trust in reporting and, in extreme cases, a block. On the other hand, if profiles have given hints that have been confirmed, they receive a bonus in their karma<\/em> and are considered qualified users at some point.<\/p>\n Note: The criterion must not be the interaction rate, nor any good behaviour or \u201cmainstream\u201d opinion. Only behaviour in relation to demonstrably harmful content according to the criteria developed (see above) is registered. Those who simply mock their political opponents or appear vulgar to others may make themselves unpopular, but they have a right to do so \u2014 and may well have an intact sense of judgement.<\/p>\n Such a system of account weightings should be simple, transparent and uniform, i.e. open-source implementable and valid in every major forum for its respective accounts. The very next step is for a legally authorised person to decide \u2014 not in terms of platform policies, but in terms of the law.<\/strong> Between the split-second judgement of the crowd or qualified users on the one hand, and a legal decision that takes weeks on the other, two more levels would have to be added.\u00a0This would require a completely new type of decision-maker. Lay judges who have taken a kind of exam in a crash course. Not someone who pores over files in an office, but people who earn a few extra bucks in their home office during rush hours. People who know our cutural and the slang of the various subcultures. Here, too, of course there must be complaint procedures. But the higher the instance, the longer a sound judgement will take.<\/p>\n This would result in the following hierarchy in the decision on harmful content:<\/p>\n So far:<\/p>\n Proposal:<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Image: US Department of Defense \/ Wikimedia<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”49px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Social media phenomena also follow people’s needs, fears and reflexes and these should be taken serious.<\/strong> Jede Ma\u00dfnahme \u201egegen\u201c einen User sollte daher mit einem spezifischen (Plattform\u00fcbergreifenden) Angebot begleitet sein. Warum sind zu meinem Thema so viele Fakes unterwegs? Wie kann ich meine Wut in etwas Konstruktives umsetzen? Wohin kann ich mich wenden, wenn ich bei mir p\u00e4dosexuelle Neigungen<\/a> bemerke? Wie kann ich aus einem kriminellen Netzwerk aussteigen? Warum mache ich mich mit einem Inhalt strafbar? Das klingt \u201egut gemeint\u201c und ist es auch. Wer dies f\u00fcr eine Bevormundung h\u00e4lt, muss ja nicht teilnehmen.<\/p>\n Every measure \u201cagainst\u201d a user should therefore be accompanied by a specific (cross-platform) offer. Why are there so many fakes on my topic? How can I turn my anger into something constructive? What could I do if I notice paedosexual tendencies<\/a>\u00a0in myself? How can I leave a criminal network? Why do I make myself liable to prosecution with content? This sounds \u201cwell-intentioned\u201d \u2014 and it is. Anyone who thinks this is paternalism may reject to take part. In addition to the categories of “legitimate expression” (no interference) and “illegal content” (must be deleted), we should admit that there is a third category: Content that is not worthy of promotion to a mass audience, but is still tolerable.\u00a0<\/strong>These must be accessible, but should not be pushed. This could include, for example, claims of responsibility from terrorists or the documentation of cruel war crimes. No responsible editorial team would put something like that on page one, but there is no such awareness in the social media to date.<\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n If we can regulate the alcohol or cigarette industries or tanning salons because we consider their products potentially harmful \u2014 why should we stand by and watch social media algorithms fuel polarisation and hatred? This is about business models. <\/strong>At the end of the day, the big platforms have to show their cards: What do they push, what do they suppress? Where is there overblocking or structural discrimination? Do they promote hate and disinformation to an extent that poses a threat to democracy as a whole and justifies regulation?<\/p>\n At the moment, the question what prevails is all about what is the most exciting, what brings the most impact, involement and screen time.\u00a0Algorithms could be used to gradually counteract this, even beyond deletions. They could just as well promote what encourages constructive discussion and solutions, i.e. de-radicalise. Such an intervention in the engine room of the large social media platforms would require clear criteria and the most neutral supervision possible to ensure balance and diversity.\u00a0And we would have to be wary of a politically coloured \u201cpublic spirit\u201d in order not to gamble away valuable trust.<\/p>\n No one should earn their money by keeping us in thrall for as long as possible with negative basal reflexes like fear, hate and insecurity. But how else are they supposed to finance themselves? Whether one defines large platforms as public (because they have to<\/em> remain independent from the government!), whether one finances them with broadcasting fees instead of advertising, whether one cuts margins, whether one asks users to pay or perhaps only accounts with very high reach \u2014 that would also be worth a hot discussion. [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#e2f2f3″ custom_padding=”15px|15px|15px|15px|false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Image: Charlie Hebdo<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”50px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n .<\/span> But clear boundaries and better functioning processes could decisively help social media to outgrow their current adolescence.\u00a0The danger of democracy and cohesion in plural societies breaking down due to hate and targeted disinformation would be reduced. We could face the next crisis with more trust in each other, with better functioning debates and more constructive solutions. And at the same time, the unobserved, dissident spaces would be preserved \u2014 without which we might as well give up democracy and freedom of thought altogether. [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n \/\/<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A memorandum with seven examples and seven proposals. The last few months have shown that our democracies can face serious crises of confidence as a result of media-driven polarization. If we want to further protect freedom of expression and fundamental rights, we have a lot of work ahead of us: We need to clarify on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4255,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"[et_pb_section fb_built=\"1\" _builder_version=\"3.22\" custom_padding=\"5px|||||\"][et_pb_row _builder_version=\"3.25\" background_size=\"initial\" background_position=\"top_left\" background_repeat=\"repeat\"][et_pb_column type=\"4_4\" _builder_version=\"3.25\" custom_padding=\"|||\" custom_padding__hover=\"|||\"][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.6.1\" _module_preset=\"default\"] Bild: YouTube<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=\"4.9.7\" _module_preset=\"default\" custom_padding=\"50px|||||\" hover_enabled=\"0\" sticky_enabled=\"0\"]\n\n
\u201eWe are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.\u201c <\/span><\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This quote by Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826) has it all. Yes, we think instinctively, everyone should be allowed to say anything! In the long run, truth will prevail \u2014 and good ideas, whose time has come, will prevail even faster. Who should possibly question that, except perhaps tyrants, blinded ideologists or people who have something to hide!?<\/p>\n\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\nExample #1: Storming the Capitol<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/BABlTT_Video2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
.<\/span>
But it wasn\u2019t three million \u2014 it was a few tens of thousands of amped-up Trump supporters who brought this nightmare<\/a> to American democracy. Shortly thereafter, various of Trump\u2019s social media accounts were shut down. He had caused this uproar and had not convincingly distanced himself. Had Rupert Murdoch (Fox News) and the social platforms not dropped Trump, there could easily have been a civil war with fanatical and armed militias \u2014 based on blatant and demonstrable lies.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/code><\/p>\nSo, what is \u201charmful content\u201d?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
.<\/span><\/p>\nExample 2: Tik-Tok\u2019s throttling<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Down_nathan-anderson_unsplash.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
The video platform TikTok has throttled the accounts of people who fall outside the norm. Because they are severely overweight, disabled or homosexual, their reach was restricted. Allegedly, this was done to protect them from bullying by making them less visible. But if you look at how minorities are treated in TikTok\u2019s home country China, you might also suspect discrimination.\u00a0When the measures became public in Germany, they were widely criticised. The platform then promised improvement and to handle the issue more sensitively.<\/p>\nTo clarify some terms<\/h2>\n
.<\/span>
<\/strong>1. Objectivity, balance or consensus?<\/h3>\n
<\/strong>Evaluating content often requires an objective judgement, or at least a consensus on \u201ctruth\u201d \u2013 which is difficult to establish.\u00a0We live in times of rapid exchange of visually compelling news that often overwhelms us. A hysteria based on a bare lie is sparked within minutes. A character assassination is quickly launched, but impossible to disprove in time. So we need a compass that tells us quickly and with relative certainty what should be promoted or tolerated and what should be kept down. Time is a critical factor here.<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n2. Free thinking \u2014 is that possible at all?<\/h3>\n
Individual and critical thinking has a long tradition in Europe. \u201cSapere aude \u2014 have the courage to use your own intellect!\u201c was the ancient motto Immanuel Kant issued for the Enlightenment. More than the Buddhists, Confucians or Muslims in Asia, enlightened Europeans saw themselves as detached individuals. Freeing oneself from all bondage through one\u2019s own efforts became the credo of the social revolutions since 1789.<\/p>\nExample 3: #lockitalldown locked down?<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/adm_313376083.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
In the Corona pandemic, some German actors posted a series of sarcastic statemets mocking the government\u2019s health measures. Under the hashtag #allesdichtmachen (\u201clock it all down\u201d), the videos caused controversy. The corresponding channel on YouTube quickly became very popular and should, of course, be easy to find. After two days, there was a great uproar: \u201cYouTube deletes #allesdichtmachen! Our freedom of expression is being infringed!\u201d \u2014 What had happened?<\/p>\n3. Can we avoid framing?<\/h3>\n
\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n
.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
.
<\/span><\/p>\n4. What is public \u2014 what is private?<\/h3>\n
The internet has created a fluid transition between private and public communication. That\u2019s why a clear distinction is difficult today, but actually important. Because the privately<\/strong> spoken word, the picture or video sent among friends, must be protected. The public media, on the other hand, are subject to control because harmful content meets a mass audience there.<\/p>\nExample 4: A kiss stirs anger<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ahmed_Kuss.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
.<\/span>
Facebook has thus fulfilled a paradoxical calculation: The more offended a group acts, the more “public order” is disturbed – but not by the supposedly offended, but by the post. S. did not want to take this lying down. Supported by the Giordano-Bruno-Foundation<\/a>, the Institute for Worldview Law<\/a> and the Initiative for Freedom of Opninion<\/em>, he took the arduous legal action. And succeeded: \u201cI am overjoyed about this important sign for freedom of opinion on the internet,\u201d he commented on his victory. \u201cA religious mob must not be allowed to prevail on Facebook with its misanthropic ideas! A kiss is not a crime!\u201d<\/p>\nWe can\u2019t do without rules<\/span> \u2013 deal with it!<\/h2>\n
However wonderful they were \u2014 the days of cheerful information anarchy on the internet are gone. It\u2019s no longer the weirdos and tinfoil hats, but savvy agencies<\/a> and professional demagogues<\/a> who master the keyboard of disinformation. You can observe that in yourself: If you have inwardly decided to follow certain narratives \u2014 e.g. in the first weeks of the Corona pandemic or before the US elections \u2014 you will easily get stuck in a bubble of self-satisfied confirmation. This can lead to sharp polarisation. Yet a democracy has to tolerate this, because after all, much is a matter of interpretation or can be understood as a discussion of values, which is of course vital. Even sheer disinformation challenges counter-speech, enlightenment, and must be tolerated up to a certain point, because otherwise we would be too quick to censor.<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\nA moderation shall be applied<\/h3>\n
Article 5<\/a>\u00a0of the German Basic Law states that \u201ccensorship does not apply\u201d. But what is meant here is merely the prohibition of state pre-censorship:<\/p>\n\n
.
<\/span><\/span>At most, in the course of the so-called indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights, the significance of Article 5 of the Basic Law also comes into play indirectly between private parties, depending on the circumstances. However, this is then an instrument of interpretation for other laws, not a direct application of the prohibition of censorship from the Basic Law.
.
<\/span>(Source: Wikipedia, German<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/span><\/p>\nThe criteria and implementation are currently far too clumsy<\/span><\/h3>\n
So we have to find a social consensus on what must not<\/em> be said, broadcast, disseminated in public. And what must be allowed<\/em> to be said on a large, public platform. So far, so difficult the theory.\u00a0But the practice is even more complicated: where and how should regulation (control, cleansing, evaluation, censorship) intervene and by whom?<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\nExample 5: Facebook incitement in Myanmar and India<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Rohingya_410835699.jpg\")
.<\/span>
In some countries, Facebook is virtually the only website used by the general population. In Myanmar, for example, the military has had resounding success with a massive smear campaign<\/a> on Facebook against the Rohingya Muslim minority since 2013. The ethnic group is not recognised there and has been systematically marginalised as \u201cstateless\u201d. Resentment, illegal detention, torture, rape and murder are commonplace. Displacement peaked in 2017, and since then some 1.5 million Rohingya have been living abroad, often in temporary shelters. The exclusion has been flanked by massive defamation, hate speech and open genocide claims on Facebook. The platform has failed in a big way<\/a> to take the inciting content off the net because it has not built up a corresponding infrastructure in Burmese over the years.
.<\/span>
India has also seen pogroms<\/a> against minorities after rumours spread that they were kidnapping children on motorbikes. A video of such a scene was circulated via WhatsApp, but it was actually a staged scene from a film set. For weeks, the police did not succeed in clearing up the matter \u2014 the messages were embellished and shared further. Incited mobs eventually lynched a whole number of completely innocent people. An excess of violence triggered solely by fake news.<\/p>\nSo how can it work?<\/h2>\n
In order to remedy the difficult situation our freedom of expression is in as social media matures, I propose the following concepts:
.<\/span><\/p>\n1. A separation of private and media communication<\/h3>\n
a) private must remain protected and
b) media must be moderated,
then we cannot avoid drawing an artificial line. Arbitrarily, I propose a range of 50 participants:<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n2. Reporting by laypersons must work<\/h3>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n3. Recognised accounts ensure integrity<\/h3>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n4. Court-authorised persons must decide<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Example 6: B\u00f6hmermann and the Lex Soraya<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Erdogan_Wikimedia.jpg\")
.<\/span>
Insulting the majesty or the president is punishable by imprisonment in some countries. In Turkey, this offence is being\u00a0prosecuted<\/a>\u00a0with increasing severity. In 2016, the German satirist Jan B\u00f6hmermann deliberately mocked Turkish President Erdo\u011fan in an invective poem, which led to diplomatic animosity. Is that allowed? It soon became clear: in a free country, it is. It\u2019s none of the politicians\u2019 business what the press does in their country, as long as no legal assets recognised here are violated. And a public person must live with harsh criticism \u2014 Ms Merkel can tell you about that. To finally clarify this, the outdated \u00a7103 StGB was soon abolished in the German parliament.
.
<\/span>The case was reminiscent of an affair surrounding the so-called \u201cLex Soraya<\/a>\u201d of 1958: at that time, the German tabloid press had gone on a rampage about separation rumours in the Persian dynasty, thus incurring the wrath of the Shah of Persia and triggering a diplomatic crisis. There were actually plans in the cabinet to pass a law that would prevent such crises through censorship. But the German Press Council and the Federal Council quickly intervened \u2014 and the bill went to the paper trash.<\/p>\n5. Provide assistance<\/h3>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n6. Legal \u2014 tolerable \u2014 illegal<\/h3>\n
7. Revise business models<\/h3>\n
.<\/span>
.<\/span><\/p>\nExample 7:\u00a0Radical Islamism \u2014 appeasement or defiance?<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/charliehebdo.jpg\")
.<\/span>
A whole series of horrific murders, attempted murders and death threats in Europe can be attributed to radical Islamists. Freedom of expression itself is often in the crosshairs. The film director Theo van Gogh or the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered. The cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was also attacked.\u00a0The author Salman Rushdie has been under the constantly renewed threat of death by Iranian mullahs since 1989. Enlightened Muslims like Seyran Ate\u015f or the Islam critic Hamed Abdel-Samad have to live under constant threat in the middle of Germany. \u201cI do not share your opinion, but I would stake my life that you should be allowed to express it.\u201d \u2014 this Voltaire quote has a literal meaning in relation to political Islam.
.<\/span>
It should be clear that we must stand up for freedom of expression here. \u201cReligious feelings\u201d are not subject to legal protection in secular states. And yet there are always voices calling for appeasement out of misunderstood tolerance or the fear of being seen as hostile to Muslims: \u201cWhy do we always have to be so provocative?\u201d Well, maybe because the radical Islamists will will not settle for small concessions. On the contrary they will interpret them as a sign of weakness and will never be satisfied. The secular understanding that religious views are diverse and ultimately a private matter is fundamental to a free society.<\/p>\nNot a perfect world \u2014 but maybe we will get our act together<\/h2>\n
The proposals mentioned are not necessarily new. Nor do they offer any guarantee of security. What if we could implement them? Some libertarians would see it as paternalism and the market liberals would see them as sign of a nanny state. They would probably even lead to new injustices. Some harmless troublemakers would continue to end up in the virtual padded cell of a limited range. And some reporting cartels would succeed in silencing unwelcome critics.<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"diesen](\"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Beitrag_hoeren-150x150.gif\")
<\/a>Eine Denkschrift mit sieben Beispielen und sieben Vorschl\u00e4gen.<\/strong>\n\nDie letzten Monate haben gezeigt, dass unsere Demokratien durch eine mediengetriebene Polarisierung in ernsthafte Vertrauenskrisen geraten k\u00f6nnen. Wenn wir Meinungsfreiheit und Grundrechte weiter sch\u00fctzen wollen, dann liegt ein Haufen Arbeit vor uns: Wir m\u00fcssen auf breiter Basis kl\u00e4ren, was \u201esch\u00e4dliche Inhalte\u201c sind und ob und wie wir sie regulieren sollten. Wir m\u00fcssen kl\u00e4ren, wo genau Meinungsfreiheit Grenzen hat. Und wir m\u00fcssen den Mut aufbringen, unsere Diskurs- und Medienr\u00e4ume sinnvoll zu gestalten. Daf\u00fcr m\u00f6chte ich ein paar Vorschl\u00e4ge zur Diskussion stellen.\n.<\/span>\n\n
\u201eScheuen wir uns nicht, der Wahrheit auf allen Wegen zu folgen und selbst den Irrtum zu dulden, solange Vernunft ihn frei und unbehindert bek\u00e4mpfen kann.\u201c <\/span><\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n..<\/span>\nDieser Sinnspruch von Thomas Jefferson (1743 \u2013 1826) hat es in sich. \u201eJawoll,\u201c denkt man unwillk\u00fcrlich, \u201eman sollte alles sagen d\u00fcrfen!\u201c Auf Dauer wird sich die Wahrheit schon durchsetzen \u2013 und gute Ideen, deren Zeit gekommen ist, um so schneller. Wer sollte etwas dagegen haben, au\u00dfer Tyrannen, verblendete Ideologen oder Leute, die etwas zu verbergen haben!?\n\nUnd doch: Ich habe noch niemanden getroffen, der eine so radikal offene Position bei l\u00e4ngerem Nachdenken beibeh\u00e4lt.\n
\n \t
Beispiel 1: Sturm aufs Kapitol<\/h3>\n
\n\n\u201eWir sind mehr als drei Millionen Menschen. Ein Meer aus rot-wei\u00df-blau.\u201c Mit euphorischen Worten verabschiedete sich die US-Veteranin Ashli Babbitt mit einer letzten Videobotschaft<\/a> Richtung Kapitol \u2013 und in ihren sinnlosen Tod. Im festen Glauben, Teil einer gro\u00dfartigen Revolution zu sein, wurde sie zur tragischen Antiheldin des Aufstandes gegen Joe Bidens Best\u00e4tigung als Pr\u00e4sident. Nach monatelangem Online-Hass und andauernden Falschbehauptungen war sie bereit, alles f\u00fcr diese Sache zu geben.\n.<\/span>\nEs waren aber nicht drei Millionen \u2013 es waren ein paar Zigtausend aufgeputschte Trump-Anh\u00e4nger, die der amerikanischen Demokratie diesen Albtraum<\/a> bescherten. Kurz darauf wurden diverse von Trumps Social-Media-Accounts abgeschaltet. Er hatte diesen Aufstand ausgel\u00f6st und sich nicht \u00fcberzeugend distanziert. H\u00e4tten Rupert Murdoch (Fox News<\/em>) und die sozialen Plattformen Trump nicht fallen lassen, h\u00e4tte es leicht einen B\u00fcrgerkrieg mit fanatisierten und bewaffneten Milizen geben k\u00f6nnen \u2013 auf der Basis von nachweislichen L\u00fcgen.\nWas sind \u201esch\u00e4dliche Inhalte\u201c?<\/h2>\n.<\/span>\nDoch auch f\u00fcr aufrichtige Pluralisten gibt es einsichtige Gr\u00fcnde, die Meinungsfreiheit zu beschneiden und Informationen, Bilder, Inhalte, Symbole oder Aussagen zu bek\u00e4mpfen. Schlie\u00dflich gibt es Inhalte, die allgemein f\u00fcr so sch\u00e4dlich gehalten werden, dass ihre L\u00f6schung oder sogar Bestrafung als richtig gilt und allgemein akzeptiert ist (Harmful content<\/em>).\n\nZum Beispiel, weil sie ...\n
\n \t