>> We really need to teach Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBNB and all those companies some manners and respect for our society.
As a German, let me tell you that this sounds absolutely ridiculous, arrogant and hubristic. You want your German Extrawurst. We're not "one society", not everyone agrees with the tons of laws and regulations we have (mostly on account of special pleading and lobbyism).
German users came to Facebook and Twitter first, not the other way around. These are not German companies, they don't need to operate out of Germany, so why should they have to follow our every law? If anything, you'd be "teaching" them not to bother with Germany, because it's too much of a pain in the ass.
I don't like all our laws either (this included) but I accept that as a society we must respect and enforce the laws we democratically choose to enact. Rule of law is a fundamental pillar of society and if that is stopped getting accepted by society at large we are in for a bad time. I don't make the laws and Facebook doesn't either.
If Facebook and co. don't want to operate in Germany, they are free to withdraw from that market. They clearly target Germany and there is a lot of money to be made here. If they want that - fine but please respect that we play by our rules here.
>> I don't like all our laws either (this included) but I accept that as a society we must respect and enforce the laws we democratically choose to enact.
No, we don't. Who taught you this nonsense? In fact, it is our duty as citizens to fight bad laws, no matter if they were "democratically chosen" or not. In Germany, we don't choose laws democratically, either. We elect representatives who may or may not do a good job at legislation, and it's our duty to scrutinize that.
Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law.
Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state.
Not every state action is good, some are even objectively bad. Of course working against such is a civic duty. But wanting to enforce a law against corporations that interacts with and clearly influences people here is neither ridiculous, nor arrogant or hubristic.
> Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law.
Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever.
We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such.
>> Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state.
What you sounds does not follow from that article - your are mistaking an "ought" for an "is"! If our duty was to do no more than "respect and enforce" laws, how is it that the supreme court declares laws as unconstitutional on a fairly regular basis? An unconstitutional law is best left unenforced and disrespected, is it not?
>> Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever.
No special pleading allowed! Besides, there are countless less extreme examples of "democratic processes" leading to unfavorable outcomes. It's just not a strong argument for anything. Witch burning was a grassroots democratic movement, if you want to look at it that way!
>> We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the previous N laws to "ensure that something like that never happens again" don't, in fact, ensure that "something like that never happens again", then why would the N+1th law make any difference? The same process that created this law can be used to repeal it. Its very existence gives strength to the far right.
Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one!
So, in your opinion, having to follow the laws of a country you visit or that you do business in is somehow illegitimate because it's an Extrawurst? Is it your expectation that the US will apply German law to you when you visit the US?
> These are not German companies, they don't need to operate out of Germany,
Well, true?
> so why should they have to follow our every law?
Because they do operate in Germany?
> If anything, you'd be "teaching" them not to bother with Germany, because it's too much of a pain in the ass.
So, we shouldn't apply laws because that could be teaching people to not bother with Germany? So I suppose you think we shouldn't apply laws at all, then? It's not like Germans couldn't end up learning that they should leave the country if they have to follow laws, is it?
>> Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one!
That isn't an "interpretation of the rule of law", that's a response to the bold statement that "We really need to teach [...] all those companies some manners and respect for our society".
Yes, we can introduce all sorts of stupid laws to make foreign companies do as we please or have them leave. No, we're not "teaching" them "manners and respect" for our society. We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue? Give me a fucking break...
>> Because they do operate in Germany?
Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.
> Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.
Actually, what they did was not legal. Not appearing in court when a judge orders you to is not legal. It just so happens that it's not enforcable when the person ordered to appear happens to be in a different country. In order to limit the negative effects of this illegal behaviour, now more of their behaviour has been made illegal in such a way that if they don't follow those rules, it can actually be enforced.
> We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue?
I don't see how this was relevant in any way to the discussion. What happened 100 years ago should of course be considered in discussions and in the law-making process today and it should not be forgotten, so that it will not repeat. But it isn't fair to still judge people born in a country where some of their grand(grand)parents did bad things.
It sounds like your argument is 'people should ignore our laws against hate speech because we're the people who brought about WW2 and the holocaust, so you shouldn't trust us on this stuff.'
Of more simply 'ignore laws that aim at preventing a repeat of a crime because of the commission of that crime.'
I'm not talking about this fantastic new hate-speech law per se, I'm talking about the broader attitude in Germany where we just expect foreign business to gratefully deal with all of our bullshit, because we really are a bunch of narrow-headed cultural hegemonists.
Imagine if Turkey asked Facebook to enforce Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. The reaction in Germany would be widespread ridicule, probably by some of the same people that demand this new law enforced because it's German law.
You do understand that one can object to the enforcement of a specific law (whatever country it is from) because one objects to the content of the law without objecting to the idea that souvereign countries can and should generally enforce their laws on everyone who influences what happens within their borders, right?
I'm not talking about this fantastic new hate-speech law per se
Then you should have made your general point at the outset. Surely it's clear that the law applies to people providing services to consumers in Germany.
Imagine if Turkey asked Facebook to enforce Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.
In Turkey? OK I guess. I haven't bothered to look up Article 301 or even whether it exists since I presume you're making a rhetorical point.
> If they did, law enforcement could stop them and there wouldn't have been a need for this new law.
So? Now, there is a law, and so what was legal before is not anymore. That is the point of creating new laws.
> They can still make money off a German audience without any business presence in Germany. Legally, from the US.
Where you are acting from does not have any influence on legality. If Germany has a law that makes what someone does in the US illegal, then it's illegal. Acting from the US only limits enforcability. If Facebook has no presence or business in Germany, Germany cannot do anything to enforce that law against Facebook. But it seems like Facebook is of the opinion that they have enough Business in Germany that it's worth for them to comply with the laws to be able to keep that business.
> Advertisers don't all discriminate.
Well, but most advertisers that want to advertise to a German audience are from Germany. If you want to be paid by advertisers from Germany, you better follow German laws, or Germany will seize the funds your German advertisers are paying you to pay fines or other debts that you owe in Germany.
>> So? Now, there is a law, and so what was legal before is not anymore.
That's my whole point, it was legal before and they weren't "making money illegally" (as the parent claimed), hence my the need for new laws.
>> Where you are acting from does not have any influence on legality. If Germany has a law that makes what someone does in the US illegal, then it's illegal.
It's not illegal in the US, from which they are operating. That's what matters. Close to 100% of porn sites are probably doing things illegally from a German legislative point of view. They're making money off of horny Germany nonetheless. So, the idea that our laws can "teach" them is ludicrous.
>> But it seems like Facebook is of the opinion that they have enough Business in Germany that it's worth for them to comply with the laws to be able to keep that business.
Yes, they chose that tradeoff over leaving the market, because at the end of the day they don't give a fuck. They did the same for China. They are probably working on AI-based deletion bots as we speak. What a great success, eh?
>> Well, but most advertisers that want to advertise to a German audience are from Germany. If you want to be paid by advertisers from Germany, you better follow German laws, or Germany will seize the funds your German advertisers are paying you to pay fines or other debts that you owe in Germany.
Oh really? When has that ever happened? If I turn off my adblock, most of what I get is international brands (YMMV), so even if all the German advertisers were gone, it would be a drop in a bucket. Maybe big enough of a drop for the company to care, maybe not, but the point remains that it is that the users stand to lose more here than any of the companies involved.
> That's my whole point, it was legal before and they weren't "making money illegally" (as the parent claimed), hence my the need for new laws.
Yeah, once upon a time, murder was legal, and people weren't "murdering illegally", so why the need for a law against murder?
> It's not illegal in the US, from which they are operating. That's what matters.
Well, if you aren't interested in reality, why are we even discussing?
> Close to 100% of porn sites are probably doing things illegally from a German legislative point of view. They're making money off of horny Germany nonetheless.
>> Yeah, once upon a time, murder was legal, and people weren't "murdering illegally", so why the need for a law against murder?
The POINT is that the parent claimed Facebook is acting illegally, my point is they were not!. There's no argument against the law itself to be found within that, you can stop trying.
>> Well, if you aren't interested in reality, why are we even discussing?
What are you talking about? I am discussing reality. You must be missing the point again, which is the following: Even if something is illegal in Germany, you can not enforce German law on every company that stands to profit from a German audience. Therefore, if you want to use German law to "teach" those companies, you're out of luck.
As a German myself, I am very glad about this, because (for example) I don't have to wait until 10PM and verify my identity to consume government-sanctioned pornography, as German law would require. You don't see a lot of people asking for respect and enforcement of those laws, yet as soon as it comes to "hate speech" the nanny-state-conformists come out of the woodwork...
>> German law itself limits its geographic applicability, and therefore that limit can be changed just as any other rules in the law.
The porn law applies in the same way that the hate speech laws apply, insofar as they're dealing with German "customers".
> The POINT is that the parent claimed Facebook is acting illegally, my point is they were not!
Except they weren't? Not respecting the law is not the same as acting illegally. If a Chinese manufacturer exports toxic food to Germany, is that illegal (according to German law)? For all I know, it's not. Does that mean that they are respecting German food safety regulations? No. Would it still be a problem if Chinese manufacturers exported toxic food to Germany? Yes. Does the fact that exporting toxic food to Germany is not illegal mean that it's not legitimate for Germany to try and find ways to prevent export of toxic food to Germany using its legal system?
> Even if something is illegal in Germany, you can not enforce German law on every company that stands to profit from a German audience.
Well, true? How is that relevant to Facebook, say? As far as I know, Facebook is not every company?
> Therefore, if you want to use German law to "teach" those companies, you're out of luck.
So, you are saying the German legislative effort known as NetzDG is not having any effect on how Facebook behaves?
> As a German myself, I am very glad about this, because (for example) I don't have to wait until 10PM and verify my identity to consume government-sanctioned pornography, as German law would require.
So, because you disagree with a specific law, you think the German state should not enforce any laws on foreign corporations? Because you think that German limits on porn are idiotic, you think an American bank defrauding German customers should not be held accountable, say?
> You don't see a lot of people asking for respect and enforcement of those laws, yet as soon as it comes to "hate speech" the nanny-state-conformists come out of the woodwork...
Which has what to do with whether laws should apply to foreign companies exactly? Are you seeing a lot of people asking for enforcement of porn laws against German companies?
> The porn law applies in the same way that the hate speech laws apply, insofar as they're dealing with German "customers".
I'm not sure it does, but in any case: Is it really a good state of affairs that it's enforced selectively-ish? It's not exactly protecting the constitutional rights of porn stars and porn producers in Germany, is it? Sure, overall, it might be better that at least foreign porn is accessible unrestricted than none at all, but is that an argument for selective enforcement, or not rather against restrictions of porn?
It's not illegal in the US, from which they are operating. That's what matters.
Yes, they chose that tradeoff over leaving the market
They don't want to leave the market because the market is where the revenue stream originates. Markets are local; the location of the HQ is irrelevant.
>> If the data you used to reach a conclusion is fundamentally flawed, it's pretty disingenuous to claim you stand by the sentiment. So they started with a conclusion, set out to prove it, later found the data they used to prove it was flawed, but still believe it's true.
It's just a sentiment. I have a strong sentiment that LTE reception in the middle of the Sahara is terrible. I haven't collected any data whatsoever to support that sentiment, yet I fully stand by it. There's nothing disingeneous about that.
It's not being "wiped out", it's being scaled down to sustainable levels.
If "the authorities" protect price levels for every job that is in a larger supply than demand, that money goes straight out of the pockets of the people who perform jobs that are in demand, i.e. the people performing the tasks that are needed the most by all the other people.
You have a less efficient economy as a result, which makes people poorer on the average.
As a German, let me tell you that this sounds absolutely ridiculous, arrogant and hubristic. You want your German Extrawurst. We're not "one society", not everyone agrees with the tons of laws and regulations we have (mostly on account of special pleading and lobbyism).
German users came to Facebook and Twitter first, not the other way around. These are not German companies, they don't need to operate out of Germany, so why should they have to follow our every law? If anything, you'd be "teaching" them not to bother with Germany, because it's too much of a pain in the ass.