Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

mediaite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 471 posts

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#41

Post by red_trumpet »

Navarr wrote: post #14

What's the law they ran afoul of here? I'm getting the impression from the Google Translate'd version of this[1] article, that they violated a contract with the company? [1]: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG...

If I understand correctly, the fine was imposed because Youtube failed to comply with the order of the court to make the video accessible again, which took them several weeks (20. April - 14. May 2020).

What confuses me is that the article states the video was removed in January, which would only make sense if it was January 2021, because January 2020 there were no restrictions in Switzerland. Maybe the above date should be May 2021.

I think the relevant piece from the Welt article is this:

> Es [the court] kam unter anderem zu dem Schluss, die geänderten Richtlinien seien nicht wirksam in den Vertrag mit dem Accountbetreiber einbezogen worden. Hierzu sei ein Änderungsvertrag erforderlich. Der bloße Hinweis, dass es künftig Änderungen geben könne, genüge nicht.

Roughly translated, the changed ToS of Youtube were not contractually effective, because the user was not asked to accept them. Stating that changes can happen any time is not enough.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#42

Post by tedunangst »

scotty79 wrote: post #35
xxpor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?

Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.

Should movie theaters be allowed to select which movies they show?

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#43

Post by voxic11 »

nemothekid wrote: post #21
anm89 wrote: post #8

Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…

> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…

Google's response to pressures from advertisers wasn't to censor anything. They just demonetized videos that the advertisers didn't want to be associated with. Hosting someone's video for free without even interrupting it with ads seems like the opposite of censorship to me. There may be something interesting to say about how the desires of advertisers shapes our discourse, but its not censorship (in this case at least).

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#44

Post by anm89 »

eli wrote: post #40
anm89 wrote: post #8

Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…

> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere. Can you define "reasonable" here in an objective way that we could all agree on? There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.

I'm subjectively inserting that comment. I think that a lot of it was reasonable. I'm not arguing that it was objectively reasonable. I'm writing my thoughts on the internet. I'm not obligated by the burden of proof to justify my subjective opinions.

>There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.

Nonsense. We don't apply this standard to anything else in life.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#45

Post by hvac »

silicon2401 wrote: post #28
xxpor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?

I wonder if you would agree to the following equivalent: > State violence is being used to force a christian bakery to bake (gay/muslim/etc) cakes it finds objectionable. Who's the villain here? The more you open service to the public, the more control over your output you lose because then it becomes a matter of discrimination.

Having a certain political opinion is not a protected class in the US

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#46

Post by throwawayswede »

anm89 wrote: post #8

Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…

> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere.

On some level, we have to acknowledge that whoever is running the shitshow at youtube and twitter are actually responsible as well, in that they believe they know enough to literally dictate what everyone in the world should see and read.

For example banning Trump from Twitter is a great example of this. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of his politics (or Biden's, or any of them, same shit different smell i say), but who the hell do Twitter people think they are that they feel confident enough to ban him? Not talking in the sense of a private company here, sure it's their business and they can do whatever the heck they want, but does anyone really think that by banning him they prevented whatever ideas of his that think should not be encouraged to stop? At best, this shows tremendous life inexperience, which I expect from kids who read a couple of books and think that they understand everything, the typical example of a tech company worker in a company like Twitter.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#47

Post by red_trumpet »

boring_twenties wrote: post #24
ipaddr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not forced to do anything but live up to the contract they signed.

Do you have some more details about this? Because there's nothing informative in the article. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Google signed a contract obligating it to host any and all content uploaded by the user, regardless of what it is. But hey, I've been surprised before.

IANAL, but if I understand this German article [1] correctly, then the changes in Youtube's ToS were not contractually effective, because the user was not asked to comply.

The fine was then imposed because Youtube took > 3 weeks to comply with the court's order to make the video accessible.

[1] https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG...

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#49

Post by rhcom2 »

scotty79 wrote: post #35
xxpor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?

Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.

> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers.

But you can mostly pick and choose your customers outside of discriminating against a protect class (in the US). If you don't want to do business with people with brown hair, no one is stopping you.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#50

Post by eli »

anm89 wrote: post #44
eli wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere. Can you define "reasonable" here in an objective way that we could all agree on? There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.

I'm subjectively inserting that comment. I think that a lot of it was reasonable. I'm not arguing that it was objectively reasonable. I'm writing my thoughts on the internet. I'm not obligated by the burden of proof to justify my subjective opinions. >There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down. Nonsense. We don't apply this standard to an…

That's my point. There is no objectively reasonable way to do this. What you think is reasonable to take down and what I think is reasonable to take down are not going to always agree.

I'm not sure what "elsewhere in life" means, but bookstores choose what books they will sell while also not necessarily endorsing every book they carry.

Post reply on HN