German Federal Election 2017

[Eredion]

Kraut and Tea

This guy?

Yeaup.

[Eredion]

There is nothing to contend about this video.
He starts out with complaining about how the Bundestag can dare to vote on more than one bill a day. Then for almost the entirety of the rest of the video complains about too little media coverage on the subject.
That´s it, he does not go into the specifics of the bill, other than Facebook and Twitter now apparently have to whatever the government wants from them in terms of censorship.

If there was nothing to contend about the video, then why contend it on basis of its creator?

I can contend the creator of the video and actually contend the lack of something of substance to contend within the video itself.

[Minzerland II]

If there was nothing to contend about the video, then why contend it on basis of its creator?

I can contend the creator of the video and actually contend the lack of something of substance to contend within the video itself.

You used the the creator as a cudgel against the video.

Kraut and Tea

This guy?

>implying Shaun and Jen are more credible than Kraut and Tea

[Liriena]

This guy?

>implying Shaun and Jen are more credible than Kraut and Tea

Yes. For one, Shaun and Jen apparently can, in fact, read. Not so sure about Kraut and Tea and the rest of Youtube's gallery of pretentious buffoons.

[Minzerland II]

>implying Shaun and Jen are more credible than Kraut and Tea

Yes. For one, Shaun and Jen apparently can, in fact, read. Not so sure about Kraut and Tea and the rest of Youtube's gallery of pretentious buffoons.

'Read'... yeah, many cases would say otherwise.

[Eredion]

Youtube drama brought to Nationstates.
Alt-Right vs Libtards

[The Empire of Pretantia]

They also vote to censor the internet!

Fake news. Sad.

Not even bothering to explain how he's wrong, huh?

[Ondonore]

It's a pity the AfD has become overrun by Nazis like Björn Höcke. It was the only real alternative to the leftist unity marsh. In the meantime the AfD has become a second NPD and the poor righteous and free-thinking Germans don't know whom to vote now. I much hope that Frauke Petry leaves the AfD and founds a new political party, and this time with better control in order to not be overrun once again. If she does not, righteous Germans can only hope that Bündnis C or the Zentrumspartei will manage to participate nationwide or in most states to be voted. But there's no big hope to get into parliament unless Frauke Petry founds a new own party.

[Phoenicaea]

(Ondonore) what about christian-democrats, Schauble it seems to me not to be leftist, assez righteous

[Omnonia]

Fake news. Sad.

Not even bothering to explain how he's wrong, huh?

Because no censorship law was passed. Everything that was legal to say before this law, still is. Thankfully, we didn't have unlimited free speech before that, and never had - limits to free speech have been written into the constitution from day one.

The only problem with that law is putting the burden onto private businesses, who now will be tempted to "overblock" - deleting statements that might break the law, but which a court might possibly rate as still legal - just to be on the safe side.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not even bothering to explain how he's wrong, huh?

Because no censorship law was passed. Everything that was legal to say before this law, still is. Thankfully, we didn't have unlimited free speech before that, and never had - limits to free speech have been written into the constitution from day one.

The only problem with that law is putting the burden onto private businesses, who now will be tempted to "overblock" - deleting statements that might break the law, but which a court might possibly rate as still legal - just to be on the safe side.

Yes, one was passed. Social networking sites will have to remove "hateful" comments or pay a massive fine.

[Ondonore]

(Ondonore) what about christian-democrats, Schauble it seems to me not to be leftist, assez righteous

Not at all. Schäuble is left-wing, while most of the CDU is far-left.

[Omnonia]

Because no censorship law was passed. Everything that was legal to say before this law, still is. Thankfully, we didn't have unlimited free speech before that, and never had - limits to free speech have been written into the constitution from day one.

The only problem with that law is putting the burden onto private businesses, who now will be tempted to "overblock" - deleting statements that might break the law, but which a court might possibly rate as still legal - just to be on the safe side.

Yes, one was passed. Social networking sites will have to remove "hateful" comments or pay a massive fine.

Hateful comments were already illegal before that. This just makes already existant laws easier to enforce (admittedly, in a problematic way). It did not create new censorship.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes, one was passed. Social networking sites will have to remove "hateful" comments or pay a massive fine.

Hateful comments were already illegal before that. This just makes already existant laws easier to enforce (admittedly, in a problematic way). It did not create new censorship.

No idea how this refutes that. They still voted to censor the internet, just harder than before; was a censorship law, meant to restrict expression.

[Arotania]

From an analysis of the EDRi:

This law contravenes Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) which provides a liability exception for online intermediaries, when they act expeditiously to remove illegal content, according to a notice-take-down procedure. The German draft law instead, provides disproportionate fines for social networks that do not delete within 24 hours “clearly violating content” or within a week “violating content”. There is no indication of how a decision is to be made on what “clearly violating content” or “violating content” might be. It is also far from clear what characteristics would be be used to definitively class a service as being a social network. As a result, it is easy to see how the fear of high fines will bring platforms to delete and block any content that appears to generate a risk of being punished under this new law. This, of course, would seriously hinder the fundamental right to freedom of expression and opinion. Indeed, the entirely predictable impact of the law, if enacted, would be a breach of key European Court of Human Rights case law in this area:[..]
This law would not be only a problem from a human rights perspective, but also from a market perspective. Rules like this would create even more uncertainty for all the European social networks that would face new, different laws for every Member State, moving away from the idea of a European Digital Single Market. Regulating the Internet as if it consisted only of Facebook or Google will create an internet that consists only of Facebook and Google.

source

also: https://edri.org/germany-will-30-june-b ... ee-speech/
Similar criticism from various other organizations exists.
So yes, that law is highly controversial, even outside the "OMG CENSORSHIP!!!!" alt-right bubble.

[Omnonia]

Hateful comments were already illegal before that. This just makes already existant laws easier to enforce (admittedly, in a problematic way). It did not create new censorship.

No idea how this refutes that. They still voted to censor the internet, just harder than before; was a censorship law, meant to restrict expression.

No, they didn't. The internet wasn't a law-free anarchy zone before, either.

Basically, what happened is that site providers are now fined for aiding and abetting lawbreakers. That's not a censorship issue, in and of itself, at least not from the government's side.

From an analysis of the EDRi:

This law contravenes Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) which provides a liability exception for online intermediaries, when they act expeditiously to remove illegal content, according to a notice-take-down procedure. The German draft law instead, provides disproportionate fines for social networks that do not delete within 24 hours “clearly violating content” or within a week “violating content”. There is no indication of how a decision is to be made on what “clearly violating content” or “violating content” might be. It is also far from clear what characteristics would be be used to definitively class a service as being a social network. As a result, it is easy to see how the fear of high fines will bring platforms to delete and block any content that appears to generate a risk of being punished under this new law. This, of course, would seriously hinder the fundamental right to freedom of expression and opinion. Indeed, the entirely predictable impact of the law, if enacted, would be a breach of key European Court of Human Rights case law in this area:[..]
This law would not be only a problem from a human rights perspective, but also from a market perspective. Rules like this would create even more uncertainty for all the European social networks that would face new, different laws for every Member State, moving away from the idea of a European Digital Single Market. Regulating the Internet as if it consisted only of Facebook or Google will create an internet that consists only of Facebook and Google.

source

also: https://edri.org/germany-will-30-june-b ... ee-speech/
Similar criticism from various other organizations exists.
So yes, that law is highly controversial, even outside the "OMG CENSORSHIP!!!!" alt-right bubble.

This is a correct representation of the problem with the law, yes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No idea how this refutes that. They still voted to censor the internet, just harder than before; was a censorship law, meant to restrict expression.

No, they didn't. The internet wasn't a law-free anarchy zone before, either.

Basically, what happened is that site providers are now fined for aiding and abetting lawbreakers. That's not a censorship issue, in and of itself, at least not from the government's side.

Yes they did. By voting on this they are continuing and intensifying their censorship.

From an analysis of the EDRi:

source

also: https://edri.org/germany-will-30-june-b ... ee-speech/
Similar criticism from various other organizations exists.
So yes, that law is highly controversial, even outside the "OMG CENSORSHIP!!!!" alt-right bubble.

This is a correct representation of the problem with the law, yes.

How is that any different from mine?

[Omnonia]

Yes they did. By voting on this they are continuing and intensifying their censorship.

Continuing: That means business as usual. Not newsworthy.
Intensifying: I disagree that this is the case.

How is that any different from mine?

Because nothing that was legal to say before this law passed is illegal to say now.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes they did. By voting on this they are continuing and intensifying their censorship.

Because nothing that was legal to say before this law passed is illegal to say now.

Missing the point that it's still a censorship law because it i concerns the censorship of the internet.

[Remnants of Exilvania]

(Ondonore) what about christian-democrats, Schauble it seems to me not to be leftist, assez righteous

Not at all. Schäuble is left-wing, while most of the CDU is far-left.

By this logic, the NSdAP probably was a centre party with slightly right portions mixed in.

[Omnonia]

Because nothing that was legal to say before this law passed is illegal to say now.

Missing the point that it's still a censorship law because it i concerns the censorship of the internet.

You're treating it as if created such censorship out of nowhere. And it doesn't. Legally, speech is exactly as free as before.

The problem is that the decision about what rates as constitutionally protected speech, and what is criminal speech, has now been outsourced from judges and lawcourts to private business. That, and only that, is the problem.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Missing the point that it's still a censorship law because it i concerns the censorship of the internet.

You're treating it as if created such censorship out of nowhere.

No I'm not.

[Omnonia]

No I'm not.

If you say so. *sigh*

Not at all. Schäuble is left-wing, while most of the CDU is far-left.

[Ondonore]

Not at all. Schäuble is left-wing, while most of the CDU is far-left.

By this logic, the NSdAP probably was a centre party with slightly right portions mixed in.

The NSDAP is also left. Nazism isn't right-wing or "conservative" at all. Says even its name: National Socialism. The only major right-of-centre party in Germany is the CSU, but it participates only in Bavaria and in the end of conflicts with Merkel often agrees with her. There has to be a new, federal, steadfest right-wing political party which gets into the parliament.

Not at all. Schäuble is left-wing, while most of the CDU is far-left.

[/quote]

Indeed, the CDU is not "Christian Democratic" at all. It's far-left in many issues, do you know the party?

[Omnonia]

Indeed, the CDU is not "Christian Democratic" at all. It's far-left in many issues, do you know the party?

As a German, living in Germany for all 43 years of my life, yes, I do. It's a center-right party; their Bavarian sister party CSU is moderate-right.

Calling them left, let alone far-left, is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard of late. And Wolfgang Schäuble would undoubtedly be aghast if you called him a leftist. He's one of the right-wingers in the CDU, and therefore moderate-right.

The NSDAP is also left. Nazism isn't right-wing or "conservative" at all

Says even its name: National Socialism.

Because that's totally not due to the post-WW1 perception "socialism == awesome", and a conscious publicity stunt by Adolf Hitler (who had a strong hand in renaming the DAP into NSDAP - if there is one thing he was other than a murderously racist demagogue, then it was a genius of political manipulation).