German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/204,
pp. 25693-25694.
Frau President. Esteemed colleagues.
Freedom, freedom of opinion, is our highest good; and to
listen to those with whom one is not in agreement, to not forbid them an
opinion, to not censor them, to not put them under pressure and thereby silence
them – that should be the democratic consensus of us all.
Only that unfortunately is not so, neither in real life, when,
for example, innkeepers are threatened because they are prepared to rent their
spaces to the AfD, nor on the internet, where users will be denounced,
arbitrary and unfounded deletions and shadow bans incomprehensibly occur –
naturally only of conservative accounts – and where life-long blockings will be
pronounced, as we have seen this last week in regards Donald Trump. That is
officially called de-platforming; I call it digital censorship.
And many stand by and applaud, like for example Hessen’s
Justice Minister Eva Kühne-Hörmann of the CDU, who has defended the blocking of
Trump. Freedom of opinion, ja, ja, but the opinion must, ja, not be unconditionally published.
Employees of the ZDF and other journalists express themselves similarly – yet good,
in regards these, I am little surprised. Certainly the Linke, who suddenly
defend media monopoly and private business, especially amuse me personally: As
always, as it just so happens, regardless of just how absurd it is.
Let us look at what has in fact happened in the U.S.A. The
digital concerns have proved that they are more powerful than the President of
the United States. They have not only deleted a private account, they have deleted
the official account of the President.
Ullii
Nissen (SPD): Very good!
The digital giants have thereby set a precedent for which
the world’s illegal legal regimes will give thanks with a blown kiss, since
apparently it is now okay to mute the political opponent, to bring him to
silence. Concerns in the U.S.A. show how it is done, and the so-called
Democrats celebrate that – it will be very difficult to subsequently shake a
finger at China.
I find astonishing Angela Merkel’s criticism of the blocking
of Trump by Twitter: The freedom of opinion as a basic right of elementary
importance cannot be limited according to the standard of a business. Dear Frau
Merkel, have you forgotten that it was your government which decided on the internet
enforcement law,
Johann
David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): Yet even your yourself demanded that!
which thereby out-sourced the right to speak and which gave
to the platforms precisely that power which you now criticize?
Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): Do
you notice that you directly contradict yourself?
You have made the social networks into prosecutors, judges
and executioners. Twitter has thus only implemented what you wanted. And you
now happen to speak of freedom of opinion? It does not get more hypocritical,
ladies and gentlemen.
Yet certainly not just Trump was blocked. In the wake of
this started a regular wave of cleansings on the internet. Countless accounts
were deleted. The Parler platform, which in the Apple and Google library stands
in first place on the download charts, was first removed from the app store and
then tossed out of the Amazon server. Thereby have people been punished and
taken in collective liability who had nothing at all to do with the storming of
the Capitol. Do you really believe to thus pacify a torn society? The opposite
is the case. The people see themselves validated by your reproaches, the distrust
grows.
Daniela De
Ridder (SPD): Then how many shall be allowed to incite?
And which firms, which store their data in the clouds of the
U.S. internet giants, can still be confident that they are safe there, that they
are not to be the next who offends against some standard and suddenly stand
before nothing? Digital sovereignty would now be primary, but unfortunately here
the government has snoozed for decades.
Ladies and gentlemen, it can and may not be the duty of the
digital platforms to define the boundaries of freedom of opinion; they are not
allowed to determine how discourse is to be conducted.
Daniela De
Ridder (SPD): Yet neither are you!
We can and may not put our democracy into the hands of
techno-oligarchs who thereupon exploit their dominant position in the market. And
that must be a lesson of the last week’s events. Here, the law-giver was
questioned. It is therefore appropriate to react to such abuse of power. The platforms
must be regulated. We need more transparency, a user grievance system [Nutzerbeschwerdesystem]. Freedom of
opinion must be safeguarded. In case of necessity, the anti-trust law enables
us to take steps according to competitiveness rules so as to end the dominant
market position of the tech giants.
We should urgently remind the networks that they are not
media; they are platforms which must be neutral. They should make no opinion;
they are an instrument of the exchange of opinions. If they want to be media,
if they edit, and so-called fact-checkers comment and form opinion, then they should
also be treated like media. Yet then are they also responsible for what the
user writes, then they are also liable for that, and that becomes expensive.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is all the same how one views
Donald Trump.
Daniela De
Ridder (SPD): No, it is not the same! Not at all the same!
What happened last week on the internet platforms should
horrify us all. Last week, Trump was blocked. Tomorrow, it could be you, or
you, or you,
Timon Gremmels
(SPD): We do not incite!
each according to how the wind turns.
Steffi
Lemke (Greens): There is a reason why he was blocked!
Let us prevent that and in common fight for democracy and
freedom, before it is too late, before we no more have a voice.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
