Germany’s controversial law requiring the tech platforms to remove hateful content has turned up only a few offenders in the last six months. But some worry that this is because the platforms have gone overboard in blocking questionable content to avoid fines.
The Network Enforcement Act, or NetzDG, was passed before Germany held its federal election last September and took effect in January. It requires platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to take down perceived illegal content within 24 hours or seven days, depending on the charge, or risk eye-watering €50 million ($60 million) fines.
Regulation of tech platforms can become a blunt tool for an issue that requires nuance. The law is vague on what constitutes hateful content, leaving platforms to make the final call. And with the risk of big fines, tech giants have reason to be more zealous with content takedowns.
“It’s like taking a sledgehammer to fix a wristwatch rather than a surgical instrument,” said Scott Vernick, a partner at law firm Fox Rothschild in the U.S.
Germany’s Federal Office of Justice said that by May it had received under 400 complaints of content that needed to be removed by platforms, far below its estimates of 25,000 complaints and 500 fine proceedings a year.
The law requires companies to publish transparency reports every six months, detailing how many requests they had and how the law has impacted them. The first will be published July 31. Until then, though, that low number has led to speculation that the platforms have been more zealous in blocking content, potentially impinging on free speech.
“We are seeing the effects of NetzDG, particularly as the larger platforms have started blocking content,” said Felix Hilgert, a senior associate at German law firm Osborne Clarke.
Members of far-right and far-left political parties alike oppose NetzGD. Germany’s left-leaning party Alliance 90/The Greens said the low number is evidence that users believe a federal authority shouldn’t be in the role of judging speech. How easy platforms have made reporting hate speech will also impact the number of complaints.
The law has led to other concerns. Politicians of far-right group Alternative for Germany have had content temporarily blocked for inciting racial hatred. Germany’s satirical magazine Titanic had its Twitter account suspended for two days for parodying AfD’s tweets. Some worry the law will give more exposure to hate speech that it was designed to suppress and that deleting questionable content will also destroy evidence that might be needed should a case come to court.
“The law is hard to implement,” Hilgert said. “I’m not aware of any case law yet that would help provide guidance to social networks on where to draw the line on certain issues. The practical difficulties were wholly foreseeable.”
The platforms have been staffing up to weed out hate speech. Google said it’s on track to meet its commitment to add 10,000 people globally to fight hate speech, including some NetzDG reviewers based in Hamburg. The platform has been using a combination of human and machine learning to flag violent and extremist content. Since December, it has been slowly training machines to automatically recognize hate speech, but it’s complicated by the fact that videos promoting terrorism tend to follow a formula while hate speech draws on traits like context, slang and intent.
Globally, Facebook is doubling the size of its safety, security and content review teams from 10,000 to more than 20,000 over the course of this year, with 1,500 people based in Germany reviewing content on behalf of the platform. We asked Twitter for comment; we’ll update this story when it responds.
Germany’s anti-hate speech law will draw more scrutiny after U.K. media watchdog Ofcom last week backed calls for greater governmental regulation on the online platforms. Platforms have avoided the same regulation as broadcasters and newspaper because they claim they are not strictly publishers. Ofcom has been cautious about regulation for fear of wading into the tangled free-speech debate. Ofcom plans to set out fuller ideas about regulation in the fall, but as Germany’s example shows, parliament will need to balance of freedom of expression while fighting content that is abhorrent to the ideals of a free and democratic society, said Vernick.
“One has to be realistic with the time frame for investigating posts,” he said. “The law shouldn’t extend beyond the nation state’s border.”
Why rent-to-own brand Aaron’s tapped Mr. T to enhance brand awareness
Rent-to-own retailer Aaron's is looking to boost brand awareness through bilingual TV spots as well as out-of-home and print ads -- all with a little help from Mr. T.
Member ExclusiveMedia Briefing: Publishers confront crypto’s bear market
In this week’s Media Briefing, media editor Kayleigh Barber reports on how publishers are adapting their blockchain-related efforts amid crypto's bear market.
Cannes Podcast: Jellyfish CEO Rob Pierre believes in prioritizing platform partners as much as clients
Jellyfish keys on two philosophies – no regions or divisions – and the network treats the major platforms as importantly as it does its clients.
SponsoredFor brands, first-party data is unlocking the cookieless ecosystem
Bill Masterson, President, Publishers Clearing House A dominant factor guiding the industry has been that cookies and mobile app IDs are vanishing and will be replaced by some mixture of new and emergent identity solutions. As a result, the market is alive with new and exciting alternatives to replace the third-party browser cookie and mobile […]
Omnicom wraps its Cannes e-commerce blitz with Kroger Precision Marketing deal
Kroger will feed its stock-on-shelf data sets on a daily basis to the Omni marketing orchestration platform that underpins all Omnicom agencies.
Publishers grapple with younger audiences avoiding the news
People under 35 are avoiding the news. At a Reuters event, publishers discussed ways to address the challenge of reaching young people.