hardwires

I'm sorry, your analysis is incorrect.

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.

> 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".

> 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.

> 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.

> Not appearing in court when a judge orders you to is not legal.

That's not actually true.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.