The past few months have shown that our democracies can get into serious crises through media -driven polarization.If we want to further protect freedom of expression and fundamental rights, then there is a lot of work ahead of us: We have to clarify on a broad basis what "harmful content" is and whether and how we should regulate it.We have to clarify where exactly freedom of expression has limits.And we have to raise the courage to make our discourse and media rooms sensible.Peder Iblher brings seven examples and suggestions.
This meaning of Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826))) has it tough."Yes," you think involuntarily, "you should be allowed to say everything!"In the long run, the truth will prevail - and good ideas that have come, the faster the faster.Who should have something against tyrants, blinded ideologues or people who have something to hide!?
And yet: I have not yet met anyone who retains such a radically open position with a long thinking.
So does the call for freedom of expression only serve to enforce your own world view?Is the "freedom of the dissenters" really important to us as we would like to tell us?
Example 1: Sturm on the Capitol
The TIIKTOK video platform has throttled the accounts of people falling out of the norm.Because they are heavily overweight, disabled or homosexual, their range was restricted.Supposedly this happened to protect them from bullying by making them less visible.But if you look at how to deal with minorities in Tikok's home country China, one could also suspect discrimination.When the measures in Germany became public, criticism hailed.The platform then promised improvement and more conscious use of the topic.
To clarify some terms
Objectivity, balance or consensus?
In order to evaluate content, often an objective judgment, but at least a consensus about "truth" - which is difficult to manufacture.We live in times of a rapid exchange of visually convincing and often overwhelming messages.A hysteria based on a bare lie is sparked within minutes.A call murder is quickly born, but impossible to invalidate.So we need a compass that quickly and relatively certainly tells us what is encouraged or tolerated and what should be kept down.Time is a critical factor.
So where are the boundaries between the common contribution and harmful content, between legitimate criticism and dangerous propaganda?Can we agree on verifiable criteria that apply binding?What is satire, what is irony and what is an insult?Which scientific knowledge can be considered sufficiently secure and which is irrelevant or refuted?And don't these standards change constantly?
In fact, a lot is normal today, which was considered unthinkable a few years ago - and vice versa.Headscarves used to be very common in Europe, today they are hotly controversial.Perhaps at some point we find photographically edited models as obscene, but vulgar expressions.Anyone who previously wanted "women to the stove" may be real today about their oppression in Arab countries.Perhaps one considers advertising for sugar at some point more dangerous than terrorist propaganda - which would be justifiable in terms of the number of victims ... - we do not know, things are in the flow.
Therefore, freedom of expression should not be about consensus or majorities.Rather, the insight of the majority is needed that dissent is necessary (democracy, pluralism, minority protection, the rule of law))).But it takes a consensus about the types of content (see above))) the status of a protected opinion may not be granted.Because they are too destructive or dangerous.This consensus can only apply "until further notice", because the story shows that it is often time -bound.
Think freely - can you at all?
Individual and critical thinking has a long tradition in Europe."Sapere Aude - have encouraged your own mind to use!"was the ancient motto that Immanuel Kant spent on the Enlightenment.Stronger than the Buddhists, Confucian or Muslims in Asia saw enlightened Europeans as detached individuals.Freed from any bondage on their own power has become a credo of social revolutions since 1789.
But awareness in the Enlightenment is also conditional: "This determines consciousness," taught Marx.And Freud said: Our early childhood socialization determines our subconscious.So even individualists are not anything that they would not have been somehow.New concepts of political re -education were not long in coming, from Goebbel's' popular receiver to Mao's cultural revolution.This opposed a pluralistic humanism that demanded a robust, defensive democracy.
To this day, the changing influences are massive: whether parents' house, school, advertising, entertainment, news or social media - ideas and ideologies flock to us from everywhere.Our culture and identity change faster than ever.Subcultures and peer groups are available, partly with tempting offers.Anyone who claims that they want to form and invent themselves are subject to an illusion.
Perhaps something else is meant: Thinking may not be directed by foreign interests.It may serve the maximum achievable knowledge and not the influence of others.Self -determination can only arise where self -confidence is present and has discovered and formulated its own interests.
Our thinking has changed since the Internet has been.It has networked and accelerated.New ideas chase around the globe and justify clusters of followers.Sometimes blisters, entire cults or parallel societies are almost hermetically concluded.People can no longer perceive a delusion when he surrounds it as naturally as the air to breathe.This is almost the business basis of sects and conspiracy myths.
If we now collide with people from such exotic worlds of thought, we consider them to be extraterrestrial - incomprehensible full fully, who apparently do not live on this planet.They seem "controlled", they do not think themselves, but follow a powerful ideology.As we probably probably - only that our world of ideas is less extreme in our view, less and gives our perceived self -determination more space.
Example 3: #ALESTMACHT DOUND?
In Corona pandemic, actors have released a number of sarcastically meant statemets in which they mocked the measures of the federal government.Under the hashtag "#Allespower", the videos provided controversy.The corresponding channel was quickly frequented on YouTube and should of course also be found.After two days, great excitement: "YouTube deletes #allesproof! Our freedom of expression will be curtailed!"- What happened?
nothing.The channel was still online.However, he had been replaced by other media in the keyword search, which partly reported critically about the campaign and probably appeared to the algorithm as a racing and relevant.The fans of the campaign felt duped and scolded and complained on a broad front.After about a week, the search result had corrected and #ALESTACHT was found again in the search results.Or was it YouTube decision-makers who had created a hand here to manipulate the opinion in the interests of the federal government?Considerable, but unlikely, because the videos were not that explosive again - and of course not illegally in no way.In my opinion, the lawyers of freedom of expression have succumbed to a control illusion, while the algorithm only did its job unimpressed.
Can you avoid "framing"?
A lot is scolded about framing: a fact is deliberately put into a certain light by skillful choice of words.Do you speak of "nuclear power" or "nuclear power"?From "right -wing extremists" or "national conservatives", "communists" or "left"?We do this unconsciously - after all, every choice of words has some pre -assembly or connotation.
Too raw facts, facts and data make no sense for our brains, but at best lead to overstimulation.Only when they are filtered and brought into connections do patterns arise.And these then model an overall picture.It goes without saying that evaluations, premises and targeted questions are in the game.There can therefore be no neutral reporting - at most a balanced position.So the questions can only be: Who controls our information, the story, framing?Who do we trust and how often do we become a little suspicious?And how honest are we to ourselves that our knowledge is only relative and acquired?
"Where mixed and ground, there is also a cheating" is an old peasant wisdom.Referred to the media could be said: "Where is edited and curated, opinion is given".Framing always takes place, just like evaluation, weighting, selection.Interests are always in the game, be it an ideology, economic advantages or simply deliver an interesting story.
But how do we protect ourselves from manipulation and massive fraud?
So media literacy is part of the answer.Books such as "thousand lines lie" or "fake facts", the occasional reading of fact checks or reports on forum networks and troll factories should convey enough background knowledge to protect yourself against manipulation.But is that enough?
What is public - what privately?
The Internet has created a flowing transition between private and public communication.A clear distinction is therefore difficult today, but actually important. Denn das privat gesprochene Wort, das unter Freunden versendete Bild oder Video, ist zu schützen.The public media, on the other hand, are subject to control because harmful content affects a mass audience there.
There is a good reason that a encrypted smartphone should remain as unobserved as a word spoken on the beach.Because all attempts to systematically break up this privacy leads to the threat of freedom of expression sooner or later.If it is perhaps today to combat child pornography (as the EU is currently discussing))), it will be terrorist content tomorrow that needs to be found.From Kurdish, Catalan or soon Scottish separatists, for example.Not to be talked about at all of Hong Kong Democracy activists, Greek investigative journalists, Saudi atheists or German whistleblowers.At a time when you almost notice without a smartphone, this technology must not turn against us (Asimov))).
(Mind you: We speak of mass surveillance and weakening of systems.It is understandable that the police are frustrated when some surveillance potential are not used.Targeted measures, such as entering suspicious groups, are a completely different topic.They can be legitimized by dishes.And by the way, this procedure is also more successful.)))
Now some people communicate in encrypted chat groups up to 200.000 loyal followers. Da kann man schon von einem Medium sprechen.It makes a difference whether 50 people see a terrorist propaganda video or tens of thousands. Ersteres ist schlimm (und kann auch virale Effekte haben))), ist aber unter Wahrung der Vertraulichkeit nicht zu unterbinden – siehe oben –, es sei denn durch verdeckte Ermittler oder Whistleblower.The other is a mass, media distribution of content that should be open to regulation.
Eine Mischform aus privater und öffentlicher Kommunikation sind Soziale Netzwerke.Here a platform provider has the moderator role. Ab einer gewissen Größe (Besucherzahl))) ist er laut Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG))) verpflichtet einzugreifen und illegale Inhalte zu sperren.He may have a house rules, but this must respect freedom of expression and must not be discriminatory.Practice looks different: usually the terms of use are interpreted closely and there is often overblocking. Schon eine sichtbare (weibliche!))) Brustwarze kann bei Instagram die Alarmglocken klingeln lassen.In my view, however, this should only apply to accounts that have exceeded the threshold of private communication, but this distinction is not made.
Example 4: A kiss causes a sensation
As Amed S.A number of photo montages published on Facebook and Instagram, of course, he suspected that they would not like everyone: To see was a kiss with Mohamed H.In one motif, the two were mounted on the background of the Kaaba in Mecca and adorned with the flag of the gay pride movement.Fundamentalist Muslims were immediately on the plan and covered the pictures with hatred and anger, right down to the threats of murder.The images were reported as harmful content, especially in Pakistan.But instead of realizing that this was a very targeted intimidation, Facebook and Instagram Ameds Accounts made it - and were therefore in the spirit of the hostile Pöbler.
Facebook has fulfilled such a paradoxical calculation: the insulted a group, the more you see the "public order" disturbed - but not by the supposedly insulted, but by the article.That wanted S.do not leave.Supported by the Giordano-Bruno Foundation, the Institute for the Well Supervisory Law and the initiative for freedom of expression, he went the arduous lawsuit.And had success: "I am overjoyed by this important sign of freedom of expression on the net," he commented on his victory."A religious mob must not prevail on Facebook with its misanthropic ideas! A kiss is not a crime!"
It doesn't work without any rules - deal with it!
As nice as they were, they are long gone-the times of the happy information anarchy on the Internet.Local spiners and professional demagogues are no longer offset by all the stops and master the keyboard of disinformation masterfully today.You can observe yourself: Anyone who has decided internally to follow certain stories-for example in the first weeks of corona pandemic or before the US elections-it stays easily in a bladder confirmation.This can lead to sharp polarization, but it has to endure a democracy.Because a lot is a matter of interpretation or can be understood as a value discussion that is of course important.Even bare disinformation challenges the counter -speech to clarify and must be tolerated to a certain point, otherwise we would be too quickly censor.
Der kritische Punkt liegt bei einer ernsten Gefährung von wesentlichen Schutzgütern (siehe oben))) oder der pluralen Gesellschaft insgesamt.With the desirable media literacy and self -responsibility, it is no longer enough.Just like other areas, such as road traffic, environmental protection, urban planning, education or food manufacturing, our information rooms without regulation do not do not do anything when it comes to these values.Because the individual is sometimes too selfish, too maliciously or simply too stupid to grant him/her with such a destructive power.Even if it sounds almost authoritarian: if we agree that many of the content listed at the beginning are illegal and not acceptable, then we have to confess to suppress them.That is exactly what is meant by a "defensive democracy".
Regulation of our media is therefore legitimate and must also have clear limits.But how should that look and work in practice?
A moderation takes place
"A censorship does not take place" says fully in Article 5 of the German Basic Law.But this means the ban on a state preliminary censorship:
What we should definitely not do now would be to be authorized to censor any one to censor our media.But that is exactly what happens: the state requires the social network platforms to delete banned content.If necessary with the upload.Great: A few random lucky knights of the Internet age, which became billionaires with sophistication and a lot of chuzdese, decide on our freedom of expression!So we hadn't imagined it.
A "moderation" takes place very well and it is not subject to any real legal control.In belief that always stands for the good cause, the platforms implement their house regulations for discretion.Deletion is quickly done, but it is often lengthy.A day for the objection can be too long, we think of election campaigns or flaming conflicts.And: a deletion is still noticed, but a weighting, the circumcision of range, adjustment of the algorithm can also have Brinsant effects.
Criteria and implementation are currently too clumsy
So we have to find a social consensus about what is not to be said, sent, distributed, distributed.And what you have to say on a large, public platform.So far, so difficult the theory. Doch noch komplizierter ist die Praxis: Wo und wie soll eine Regulierung (Steuerung, Säuberung, Bewertung, Zensur))) eingreifen und durch wen?
We see every day that it doesn't work particularly well.Or: a lot works well - but the resentment, if something is misjudged, is rightly large.A AI to let our debate rooms muck out - that's not that simple.The content moderators are often overwhelmed.The effort to make it good would be high and nobody wants to pay for the costs.It is about nothing less than our freedom of expression.
Example 5: Facebook agitation in Myanmar and in India
In some countries, Facebook is almost the only website used by the general public.For example, the military in Myanmar had a massive defamation campaign on Facebook, which has been against the Muslim minority of Rohingya since 2013.The ethnic group is not recognized there and was systematically excluded as "stateless".Resentments, illegal detention, torture, rape and murders are the order of the day.The expulsion culminated in 2017, and since then around 1.5 million Rohingya has often lived in emergency accommodation abroad.The exclusion was flanked by massive defamation, hate speech and open genocide claims on Facebook.On a large scale, the platform has failed to take the punitive content off the network because it has not built up a corresponding infrastructure in Burmese for years.
Pogroms against minorities also occurred in India after rumors made the round that these children would kidnap motorcycles.A corresponding scene was distributed on video via WhatsApp, but it was actually a played scene of a film set.For weeks, the police failed to provide information - the news was decorated and further shared.After all, a whole series of completely innocent people lynched in this way.An excess of violence, triggered solely by fake news.
So how can it work?
To remedy the difficult situation in which our freedom of expression is in the maturation process of social media, I suggest the following concepts:
1.A separation of private and media communication
It used to be clear: a call is private, a letter to the editor is public.But today we have intermediate shapes such as profiles, forums or chat groups, in which virtually private, but potentially potentially communicated with a large cladding.So when we say
a))) privat muss geschützt bleiben und
b))) medial muss moderiert werden,
Then we can't avoid pulling an artificial border.I arbitrarily propose a range of 50 participants:
a))) Wer mit bis zu 50 Menschen kommuniziert, unterliegt der vollen Geheimhaltung von Verschlüsselung und ePrivacy, inklusive Metadaten.There you can say and share what you want in a protected room.If this is called for murder and homicide, you have to hope for a denunitable.Or on good police work with a judicial reservation, because even private rooms are not legally free.We would have to accept everything else as collateral damage to our freedom of expression.Because we know that it could have been shared as well in the darknet or at a meeting in the forest, surveillance cannot exterminate evil.
b))) Kanäle, die ein Publikum von mehr als 50 Personen erreichen, gelten als Medien und unterliegen grundsätzlich einer öffentlichen Einsichtnahme und Regulierung. Je nach Verbreitungsgrad und Gefährlichkeit der Inhalte müssen schädliche Inhalte (siehe oben))) mehr oder weniger schnell vom Netz genommen werden.(Reporting and reaction times, warnings and filters are dealt with in detail below below.))) A messenger service would then have to limit closed chat groups in 50 people, operators of larger forums would be obliged to moderate.
2.Reporting by layperson must work
The reporting routes in the large networks are currently awkward and inconsistent.A uniform process would be necessary in which low -threshold, quickly and precisely can be specified why content is illegal and must be removed.Or, as a complaint, why the contribution should not be subject to blocking.A warning can be given after one or two reports and a judgment can be obtained from the crowd.Soon we will have several judgments in this way - and maybe a reporting war.If the matter is controversial, a qualified person should look at this, within a short time.
However, this swarm intelligence has a large hook: the sheer amount of harmful material is hardly reasonable for laypersons. Heerscharen von Content-Moderator*innen ("Cleaner"))) setzen ihre psychische Gesundheit dafür ein, uns vor Enthauptungsvideos und Abbildungen von Kindesmissbrauch zu schützen.This work is unreasonable;These people are finished with the world within months.A hope lies on AI, but this is currently making more mistakes than would be permitted in the sense of freedom of expression.It is not for nothing that we have always defended ourselves against upload filters.Are we lying in our pocket here?Low -threshold opposition options, in combination with a better trained AI, could be a solution in the long term.But the topic remains explosive.The question of the storage of "training material" is ethically difficult to answer.
3.Recognized accounts ensure integrity
Es gibt Methoden, die Qualität von Accounts zu bewerten, ihr "Internet-Karma".Freshly opened, a few followers - this account should not be trusted with any significant judgments.Many warnings due to harmful content, possibly belonging to a closed ring-obvious troll accounts could be counted.With time penalties, less reach, less trust in reporting and in extreme cases with a blocking.On the other hand, profiles have given information that have been confirmed, you will receive a bonus in your internet karma and are sometimes considered qualified users.
Mind you: The criterion must not be the interaction rate or any well-being or a mainstream opinion.The behavior is only registered with regard to the demonstrably harmful content in accordance with the criteria developed (see above))).If you just mock yourself about the political opponent or talk about vulgar stuff all day long, you may be unpopular, but you have a right to do - and can definitely have an intact judgment.
Such a system of account weights should be simple, transparent and uniform, i.e. source openings implementable and valid in each larger forum for its respective accounts.
4.Judicially authorized must decide
In the next step, a legally authorized person must decide - not in the sense of a house rules, but in the sense of the law.Two more levels would have to be collected between the seconds of the crowd or the qualified user on the one hand and a weekly legal decision on the other hand.For this it would need a whole new type of decision -makers: lay judges and lay judges who have put a kind of exam in a crash course.Not someone who rolls files in an office, but people who earn a few euros in the home office during peak times.People who know our culture and the jargon of the various subcultures.Here, too, there must of course be complaint options.But the higher the instance, the longer a well -founded judgment will last.
So ergäbe sich folgende Hierarchie in der Entscheidung über schädliche Inhalte:
So far:
Suggestion:
Example 6: Böhmermann and the Lex Soraya
In some countries, prison sentence is on majesty or presidential insult.In Turkey, this crime is pursued with increasing hardness.The satirist Jan Böhmermann specifically mocked the Turkish President Erdoğan in a abuse poem, which led to diplomatic animosities.Can you do that?It soon became clear that in a free country you can do that.Politicians have nothing to tackle what the press does in its country, as long as no legal goods recognized here are violated.And with a public person, it is the case that she also has to put up with cutting criticism - Ms. Merkel can sing a song about it herself.The traditional paragraph 103 of the Criminal Code was finally abolished for the final clarification.
The case was reminiscent of an affair about the so-called "Lex Soraya" from 1958: The German Boulevard press had spent itself on rumors of separation in the Persian ruling house so that the rage of the Shah of Persia triggered and triggered a diplomatic crisis.At that time there was actually cabinet plans to adopt a law that avoids such crises by censorship.But the German press council and the Federal Council quickly intervened - and the template hiked into the trash.
5.Provide help offers
The phenomena on social media also follow the needs, fears and reflexes of people and this should be taken seriously. Jede Maßnahme "gegen" einen User sollte daher von einem spezifischen (plattformübergreifenden))) Angebot begleitet sein.Why are so many fakes on my topic?How can I implement my anger into something constructive?Where can I turn if I notice pedosexual tendencies?How can I get out of a criminal network?Why do I make myself punishable with a content?That sounds "well meant" and it is too.Whoever thinks this is a patronization does not have to participate.
6.Legal - tolerable - illegal
Neben den Kategorien "legitime Meinungsäußerung" (kein Eingriff))) und "illegaler Inhalt" (muss gelöscht werden))) sollten wir uns eingestehen, dass es eine dritte Kategorie gibt: Inhalte, die für ein Massenpublikum nicht förderungswürdig, aber noch zu tolerieren sind.So that must be called up, but should not be pushed.This could include, for example, terrorists' confession letters or the documentation of cruel war crimes.No responsible editors would bring something like this on page one, but on social media there has been no such awareness to date.
Here we leave the purely legally oriented area of black and white and enter the explosive gray area of the weighting of content.In the current wild growth, this weighting results from the interests - i.e. from the content or profit interests of the platforms or from the communication goals of those who cleverly use them to use them skillfully.Do we dare to intervene here too?How do we protect this area from mistrust, conceit and particular interests?Because as I said, where is mixed and ground ...
7.Check business models
Wenn wir die Alkohol- oder Zigarettenindustrie oder Sonnenstudios regulieren können, weil wir ihre Produkte für potenziell schädlich halten – warum sollten wir dann zuschauen, wie die Algorithmen der Sozialen Netzwerke Polarisierung und Hass schüren? Hier geht es um Geschäftsmodelle.Ultimately, the big platforms have to be looked into the cards: What do you push, what do you suppress?Where is overblocking or structural discrimination?Do you promote hate and disinformation to a measure that represents a threat to democracy as a whole and justifies regulation?
At the moment it is prevailing what is the biggest excitement, which is the most impact, involement and screen time.Here could be controlled gradually with algorithms, i.e. also beyond extinguishing.You could just as well promote what a constructive discussion and solutions promoted, i.e. de-radicalized.This interference in the machine room of the large social media platforms would require clear criteria and a neutral supervision that ensures balance and diversity.One would have to take care of a politically colored "common sense" so as not to gamble valuable trust.
Nobody should earn their money with negative basal reflexes such as fear, hatred and uncertainty for as long as possible. Aber womit sonst sollen sie sich finanzieren? Ob man große Plattformen als öffentlich-rechtlich definiert (denn staatsfern müssen sie bleiben!))), sie mit Rundfunkgebühren statt Werbung finanziert, ob man Margen beschneidet, ob man die User zur Kasse bittet oder vielleicht nur Accounts mit sehr hohen Reichweiten – auch das wäre eine heiße Diskussion wert.
Example 7: Islamism - appeasement or despite?
A whole series of gruesome murders, attempts to murder and death in Europe goes to the account of radical Islamists.In the crosshairs there is often freedom of expression itself.The director Theo van Gogh or Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists were murdered.There were also murder attacks on the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.The author Salman Rushdie has been under the constantly renewed threat of death by Iranian Mullahs since 1989.Enlightened Muslims such as Seyran Ateş or Islam critic Hamed Abdel-Samad have to live in the middle of Germany under constant threat."I don't share your opinion, but I would use my life to express them." - This sentence of Voltaires has a literal meaning in terms of political Islam.
It should be clear that you have to stand up here for freedom of prevalence."Religious feelings" are not a legal estate in secular states.And yet there are always voices that are considered to be an anti -Muslim out of misunderstood tolerance or for fear of being an appeasement: "Why do you always have to provoke?"Well, maybe about that: the radical Islamists will not accept small concessions, on the contrary, interpret them as a sign of weakness and never be satisfied.The secular view that religious views are diverse and ultimately private is fundamental to a free society.
No heal world - but maybe we'll get the curve
The suggestions mentioned are not necessarily new.And they also offer no guarantee for security.What if we could implement it?The libertarians would see paternalism in it and the market liberals would be a congregation.There would probably even be new injustices.Some harmless quarrels would continue to land in the virtual elastic cell of a limited range.And some registration cartel would be able to silence unpleasant critics.
But clear boundaries and better functioning processes could help decisively to have social media out of their current puberty.The risk that democracy and cohesion in plural societies will break down on hatred and targeted disinformation would be reduced.We could counter the next crisis with more trust in each other, with better functioning debates and more constructive solutions.And at the same time, the unobserved, dissidential freedom remained - without which we could let that with democracy and freedom of thought.
The article first appeared on the author's blog.
