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

81–90 of 471 posts

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

#81

Post by sureglymop »

syshum wrote: post #57
nemothekid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And why did "advertisers threatened to boycott" due to pressure from "hyperliberal's" that are prputally offended by everything. They tried to get YT to do it, when YT ignored them they went after the money... It is right from the liberal playbook

The advertisers threatened to boycott because otherwise they would have risked being scrutinized and potentially making less profit.

What actually happened isn't that one side of the political spectrum "censored" the other side in some sort of targeted attack.. it's that advertisers and private companies optimized for generating as much profits as possible by (obviously) pondering to the majority of potential customers.

Ironically.. such is the nature of capitalism.

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

#82

Post by howmayiannoyyou »

We blame Youtube/Google management, but in reality it's as much a tyranny of the company's employees and their political leanings.

We've done a terrible job the last 30 years promoting national security literacy and constitutional integrity preservation to our youth.

It may well be this country's undoing. No exaggeration.

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

#83

Post by charonn0 »

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.

Stores can pick and choose their customers. It all depends on the basis for the decision.

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

#84

Post by neverminder »

voxic11 wrote: post #43
nemothekid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lea…

So now they are demonetizing videos that want to be monetized and vice versa. Time for YouTube's demise is long overdue. I hope Peertube, decentralization and finger to censorship is the future.

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

#85

Post by Phil_Latio »

ntrz wrote: post #7

> The German court held that YouTube failed to make its enforcement authority clear in its contract with the account operator who posted the video. Does YouTube's TOS really not contain statements giving them the ability to stop hosting any video, at any time, for any reason? Edit: I guess not: the only content removal clause I see is this one, which is definitely not "we can remove your video for any reason, as long…

> Does YouTube's TOS really not contain statements giving them the ability to stop hosting any video, at any time, for any reason?

The highest court in Germany (for civil and criminal proceedings) wrote this in one of their rulings:

> Depending on the circumstances, especially if private companies - as in this case - move into a dominant position and take over the provision of the framework conditions of public communication themselves, the fundamental rights obligation of private parties can in fact be close to or even equal to a fundamental rights obligation of the state.

So as long as YouTube, Twitter etc. are open to "the public", they could write "we reserve the right to remove any content for any or no reason at any time" in their TOS and it wouldn't be valid in Germany.

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

#86

Post by didibus »

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…

Isn't "political pressure" here really means "user pressure" ?

My understanding is that users of YouTube pressure YouTube to censor some things, YouTube wants to appeal to its user base, because customers are important for profit.

Now Germany says that maybe in their position censoring things for profit is not legal or something like that and fines them.

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

#87

Post by djrogers »

kristofferR wrote: post #29
ipaddr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube classified this as "misinformation". They have the power to crush any voice and they are. I hope a crisis takes some power away from them.

Misinformation is a really dangerous concept. Sure, bad information certainly exists, but a lot of things throughout history have been labeled "misinformation" before it became confirmed information.

> a lot of things throughout history have been labeled "misinformation" before it became confirmed information.

Heck, we don't even need to go back too far in history - a lot of COVID-19 information was labeled "misinformation" before being proven correct/possibly true.

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

#88

Post by namlem »

ryanSrich wrote: post #75
pbreit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They caved to censoring things that were reasonable" I'd argue that much of their censorship was not reasonable at all. None of it was illegal. Mostly just differences of opinion. My "information" is your "misinformation".

Right. Nothing these platforms censor or began censoring early on was anywhere near reasonable. It was all political grandstanding to show those in power that big tech are the good guys. They’ll do the political bidding of the elites and politicians will only threaten to hold companies responsible to gain points with their constituents. All the while the politicians and big tech are in bed with each ensuring the info…

So users who troll and harass other users, spam, post hateful content, etc. should never be banned? That's just leads to a precipitous decline in quality and drives other users away. Why would I want to spend my leisure time on a platform filled with 13 year-old shouting racial slurs?

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

#89

Post by charonn0 »

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.

Youtube isn't making the videos, though.

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

#90

Post by anm89 »

didibus wrote: post #86
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…

Isn't "political pressure" here really means "user pressure" ? My understanding is that users of YouTube pressure YouTube to censor some things, YouTube wants to appeal to its user base, because customers are important for profit. Now Germany says that maybe in their position censoring things for profit is not legal or something like that and fines them.

Valid point. Just pressure in general is probably more accurate. Once you bow to user pressure, you still open yourself up to political pressure. The political pressure probably comes masqueraded as user pressure anyway.
Post reply on HN