It appears that a new law in Germany will serve as an early test of whether Elon Musk’s reckless management of Twitter will result in meaningful legal consequences. The law mandates that social media platforms respond quickly to reports of hate speech and, in some cases, remove illegal speech within 24 hours of being made aware of it.
Legislators and social media users have been worried that Twitter could degenerate into a hellscape of low-to-no content moderation under its new staff-liquidating, shitpost-loving billionaire owner since the self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutist’ took over at the end of October and set to with mass firings and radical policy shifts (including, just this weekend, lifting a permanent suspension on former US president Trump).
It’s true that Twitter is subject to foreign content control rules, including Germany’s: It is possible to face fines of up to €50M for failing to comply with complaints to delete illegal hate speech under the German law known as NetzDG (an abbreviated version of its full name).
However, it is unclear how much core content expertise and moderation resource is left in-house to enable it to comply with various existing regulatory requirements falling on the business in international markets like Germany and India in light of Musk’s mass Twitter layoffs and a number of notable resignations since he took over, including the departure of the former head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth.
After Musk’s “hardcore” ultimatum to staff last week, it is estimated that just hundreds of the company’s original 7,500 remain.
Lawmakers have responded quickly to reports of widespread layoffs at the company’s international offices, including in Spain, where the minister for work tweeted a warning to the company earlier this month for failing to adhere to local labour laws after dozens of employees were reportedly let go (which she following that by saying the labour inspectorate was acting on the case after union complaints).
There have been layoffs at Twitter from all around the world, including in Germany, where a local union said earlier this month that many software developers had received Musk’s infamous “commit to be tough or leave” email late last week. Reuters also reported last week on comments made by a German government spokeswoman, who expressed “increasing worry” over recent events on Twitter.
This next Thursday will be the hearing date for an injunction action brought against Twitter by German IT legal firm JunIT Rechtsanwälte. It claims that the firm has disregarded allegations of hate speech and failed to delete unlawful information in accordance with NetzDG regulations.
Earlier this month, the company’s founder and managing partner, Chan-jo Jun, tweeted a “save the date” marking, stating that the firm will be asking for platform-wide injunctive relief at a public hearing where Twitter would have to explain for its failure to act on allegations of hate speech.
Germany has some of the most stringent anti-hate speech laws in the West, making it illegal to share Nazi emblems or deny the holocaust, among other things.
Therefore, it is evident that Musk is headed for a direct collision with the German law if he seeks to apply a purely American-centric flavour of free speech across Twitter worldwide, and/or simply fails to have enough staff working on content moderation and adequately resourced to respond to reports about illegal content.
A reporting duty on platforms requiring them to disclose some sorts of “illegal content” to the Federal Criminal Police Office will go into effect in Germany in mid-2020, after the implementation of the NetzDG law in that country in 2017.
Further legal amendments made in the last year aimed to protect users’ rights by increasing platform openness. This was done, for example, by mandating that technology companies provide researchers with information on takedowns.
Despite NetzDG’s long history of enforcement in Germany, the law continues to be a source of debate, with detractors claiming it stifles free expression online by pushing social media companies to avoid taking any unnecessary risks and instead just blocking all of their users’ material.
However, for a long time, users in markets outside of Germany who wanted to quickly escape from online hate that flourished on Twitter in earlier, pre-Musk years — when its prior leadership allowed a toxic bloom of US white supremacist and neo nazi speech via lacklustre and inconsistent application of claimed community standards — would switch their location to Germany in the settings and get all thi.
If German law is the primary (or only) legal instrument available to reprimand Musk for destroying Twitter’s content control regulations, it would be very hilarious. (A pan-EU Digital Services Act rule focusing on controlling takedowns of illicit content will not become effective until February of next year).
However, it is a huge if. Since it is unclear if Musk would pay any heed to speech-related regulations, or any laws, outside the US, this is a critical concern for foreign regulators. (At the same time, mounting domestic concern about Musk-compliance Twitter’s with the FTC consent order has prompted a’shot across the bows’ comment from the US regulator earlier this month.)
Telegram, a messaging platform, was hit with two NetzDG fines in Germany last October, totaling around €5M for violations of requirements to provide channels for users to report illegal hate speech and failing to appoint a local representative to be served documents with legal effect. However, this level of penalty seems unlikely to cause Musk any more sleepless nights than he is already getting due to his purchase of Twitter.
In theory, at least, German law permits heavier fines for violations, which could mount up for an ad platform that has seen major sponsors depart since Musk’s acquisition.
However, how (or even if) international regulators can collect fines and enforce legal consequences against a’self-driving’ Twitter remains an open question. This is especially true in scenarios where the company’s CEO, like Musk, removes all employees from a market and leaves no local entities to be served legal documents.
For a long time, Twitter users in markets outside of Germany who wanted to quickly escape the online hate that flourished on the platform in the pre-Musk years could do so by changing their location to Germany in the settings and getting all thiiiiiis.
It would be amusing if German law is the primary (or only?) legal instrument available to reprimand Musk for undermining Twitter’s content filtering standards at this time. The EU’s Digital Services Act legislation, which is likewise concerned with controlling takedowns of unlawful content, will not go into effect until at least February of 2019.
But that’s a huge if. International authorities are understandably concerned about whether or not Musk will pay any heed to speech-related regulations, or any laws, outside of the United States. (Similarly, in the US, worries are increasing over Musk-compliance Twitter’s with the FTC consent order, prompting a “shot across the bows” comment from the US regulator earlier this month.)
Telegram, a messaging platform, was hit with two NetzDG fines in Germany, totaling around €5M, back in October for failing to provide channels for users to report illegal hate speech and for failing to appoint a local representative to be served documents with legal effect. However, this level of penalty seems unlikely to cause Musk any more sleepless nights than he is already getting due to his purchase of Twitter.
Despite the fact that, on paper at least, German law does allow for greater fines for breaches, this may add enormous financial difficulties to an ad platform that has seen major advertisers depart after the Musk purchase.
How (or even if) international regulators can collect fines and enforce legal consequences against a’self-driving’ Twitter remains an open question. If, for instance, Musk pulls all employees out of their markets and leaves no local entities to be served papers, this could be a significant challenge for international regulators.
However, for a long time, users in markets outside of Germany who wanted to quickly escape from online hate that flourished on Twitter in earlier, pre-Musk years — when its previous leadership allowed a toxic bloom of US white supremacist and neo nazi speech via lacklustre and inconsistent application of claimed community standards — could simply change their location to Germany in the settings and get all thi.
It would be amusing if German law were the primary (or only) legal instrument available to reprimand Musk for destroying Twitter’s content control guidelines at this time. (A pan-EU Digital Services Act rule that is similarly focused on controlling illicit material takedowns does not come into force until February of next year at the earliest.)
Of course, that’s a huge “if.” Since it is unclear if Musk would pay any heed to speech-related regulations or any laws outside the US, this is a critical concern for foreign authorities. (Similarly, domestically, concerns are developing over Musk-compliance Twitter’s with the FTC consent order, prompting a “shot across the bows” comment from the US regulator earlier this month.)
Telegram, a messaging platform, was hit with a couple of NetzDG fines in Germany, totaling around €5M, back in October for violations of requirements to provide channels for users to report illegal hate speech and for failing to appoint a local representative to be served documents with legally binding effect. However, this level of penalty seems unlikely to cause Musk any more sleepless nights than he is already getting due to his purchase of Twitter.
Although on paper at least, German law does allow for harsher fines for violations, which could add up for an advertising platform that has seen big sponsors depart since Musk’s acquisition.
However, how (or even if) foreign regulators are able to collect fines and impose legal repercussions against a’self-driving’ Twitter remains an open topic, especially if Musk, for example, removes all staff out of their markets and leaves no local companies to be served papers.