Anyone who provides a news service (messenger), a website or an Internet platform on which users can generate so-called content themselves (i.e. (text) inputs that are then visible on this platform) is jointly responsible for this content. This is nothing new, it was long before that NetzDG so. It starts on a small scale: if you write a comment here under a post, you are not solely responsible for it, we are too. At least from the moment we become aware of your comment through a report and it potentially violates any valid legal norm, we are at least responsible for making this comment no longer publicly available as quickly as possible.
Websites, forums and comment columns
This is fine so far and also fulfills its purpose: tasteless, illegal or even dangerous content should be moderated. Since the early days of the Internet, smaller Internet forums and comment columns have been popular meeting places for people who use them to say things that they would otherwise like to say but are not allowed or not able to. Only with the advent of Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and co. this has changed somewhat: you no longer need the anonymity of the small, unknown websites and portals, but wallow in the anonymity of the masses. You rely on not being noticed by the millions of users, except of course those who want your content to be noticed.
This inevitably displeases many: those who hold public order by office or calling, those who are affected by the content or at least feel it is, and those who believe their own content is the right one and deserves more Attention. Since people today feel more and more affected more and more quickly, the legislator naturally also sees an increased need for action here. In principle, this could even be a good thing, if there weren’t a small snag: the legislator usually understands very little about modern technologies and methods and therefore believes that antiquated measures also help with modern problems. No one seems to notice that this is not the case at all.
Don’t shoot the messenger!
Depending on your point of view, these measures either fall far short or far too far. In any case, what they fail to do is help solve the problems. One of the biggest mistakes here is trying to put the reins on the horse from behind. Instead of punishing those who are actually responsible for the criminal content, the platform operators are attacked, because they are – supposedly – easy to get hold of. In general, attempts are being made to shift responsibility onto platform operators.
Depending on the platform, this works sometimes more or less well. Over time, many platforms (such as Facebook and Twitter in particular) have simply switched to blocking blindly at first. If a post has been reported enough times, the account will be blindly banned for the time being. On Twitter, you usually remain blocked until you delete the incriminating post. Twitter usually does not really check whether the post actually justifies a sanction. A nice example of this can be found, for example here.
The actual Interior Minister Faeser now wants to take action against the messenger service Telegram, such as the daily mirror reported. Telegram received more attention, among other things, because Protagonists like Hildmann and Wendler used the messenger to do so, their views on Corona and co. to make it available to a wider audience in so-called telegram channels. The problem with such plans is that they never solve the underlying problem, but always only eliminate a symptom in the short term and selectively. Faeser’s ultima ratio, a ban on the Telegram platform, is a milkmaid’s calculation. Because the next platform, which is then switched to, is quickly found. The problem has now moved from A to B, Raider is now called Twix, otherwise nothing changes.
We have laws, you just have to use them
The existing laws would have been more than sufficient. Also, there is no need for platform bans to get the problem under control. What is needed, however, is consistency. The fact that Faeser is directly on a confrontational course with a platform shows that Faeser has little or no idea about things like community building and the Internet and its media/platforms.
This is not even particularly new or even limited to the area of “social media” or messaging. Does anyone remember the “early days of file sharing” with Napster? Back then, when at least 5 other similar services popped up out of nowhere within a very short time and users simply switched to the next service if one was paralyzed or the files they were looking for couldn’t be found there? The same principle applies here. If Faeser now bans Telegram, the users simply switch to the next service.
Taking the platform away from a community never leads to the desired result. It only ensures that this community looks for a new platform and grows even closer together. Incidentally, this hasn’t just been the case since the Internet, it was already an essential feature of communities even before we even knew what communities were. Neither did the ban on socialist/communist parties solve the underlying problem of socialism, nor would a ban on the NPD/AfD solve the problem of Nazi ideology. Taking the organizational structure away from a group is ultimately just window dressing and does more harm than good. The group itself will quickly rally, regroup, and then one of two possible scenarios will occur:
- The grouping loses coherence for a while and is disorganized for a short time. However, that doesn’t last long and only stirs up resentment against the evil state that has pushed you apart and thus strengthens the group. Due to this strengthened sense of togetherness, the group quickly finds itself together again under a different organizational structure and, with bad luck, even grows. The group emerges strengthened from the process.
- The group breaks up into individual splinter groups. Instead of one, coherent and recognizable grouping, one is now dealing with multiple splinter groups, each possibly using different platforms and methods of communication.
The solution is not to ban platforms and services. The solution is much simpler: just apply existing laws. Insults, hate speech, racism, there are already enough laws for all of these things. You have to use it against those who also committed the offense.
How little sense Faeser’s advance makes can be illustrated very simply:
Hello, Federal Minister.
Quick question: traditionally, such threats were sent by post.
When is the ban on the @DeutschePostDHL to count?
Shoot the offender, not the messenger.
Sincerely,
a head-shaking citizen https://t.co/QWxupTmP2M— badidol | masked, distant, fully vaccinated (@badidol) January 7, 2022
–
If someone harasses people in a park, then you don’t ban parks, but rather investigate and punish the person who harasses people in the park. Telegram (and each other platforms alike) is the park. And it’s not the park’s fault if rude bullies misbehave in it.
–
Tobias Buturoaga was born in 1981. He has been working on and on the Internet for almost 20 years as a community manager, social media manager, moderator and sells Eskimos refrigerators. He speaks sarcastic fluently. Left-wing in his youth, more socially liberal as a young adult and meanwhile annoyed by conventional pigeonholing. Atheist, pragmatist and realist.
—-
–
