Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by throwawayswede » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #87

kristofferR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lab theory people were called conspiracy theorists this exact same time last year. Now they're on mainstream fucking tv. And don't you dare mention china or you'd be labelled a trump fan. Now that's cool cuz uncle joe okayed it.

If anything, this shows the zombies that the people are. Anything TV says is truth. A stupid short report from an online magazine made some late show host make a short skit about it and boom, like wild fire. I call total bs on that whole thing. This entire COVID response has been political from DAY 1. Western countries response has not only been shameful, but absolutely reprehensibly.

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

#102

Post by eli » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #61

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.

Platforms that claim to be open content systems (i.e it is not topic limited like say a Mac Forum) should only remove content that is illegal in nature, i.e Sexual Exploitation of minors, True Threats, etc. > popular anti-vax since Anti-Vax has now been refined to include anyone that opposes government mandated vaccinations, I am a Vaxxed Anti-Vaxer as I oppose all government mandates. People should be free to choose…

You are of course free to create a platform that only removes illegal content, just as Twitter or YouTube is free to to remove content they don't like.

But I think you'd find two problems: determining what could be illegal is really hard (what's a "true threat" and what's a tasteless joke?), and also you'd end up with a community that looks a lot like 4chan or parler. Not a place I would choose to hang out.

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

#103

Post by SamBam » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

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

Consumers objecting to content is as old as television, and even older, and is certainly not owned by "hyperliberals."

For example, Conservatives demanded radio stations stop playing the Beatles, and, only slightly more recently, the Dixie Chicks. They called up advertisers as well.

You could probably find people complaining to artists' patrons in Medieval texts, if you looked.

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

#104

Post by throwawayboise » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

Phil_Latio wrote: post #85

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 commu…

This is as it should be IMO. When you position yourself to be a de-facto public square, you shouldn't get to selectively operate like a private club when it suits you.

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

#105

Post by handrous » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

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…

They (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, even Reddit) act so very much like publishers that it seems to me the mistake was granting "platform" protections to sites that: claim broad rights over posted content; use complex logic to decide what to promote (that they promote anything is alarming, for a "platform"!) and what a visitor sees while also hosting and distributing that content they're highlighting or promoting (which makes them distinct from some rando's best-of lists on their personal website, linking to content hosted elsewhere); place ads alongside content but sometimes choose not to; and, at times, engage in revenue sharing. And that's before we even get into the censorship.

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

#106

Post by dukeofdoom » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

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…

Its pretty clear these platforms are not Neutral.

Facebook literally set up vote drop boxes to maximize number of votes in precincts that heavily favour democrats in last election. They also banned a sitting president. So why even bother pretending they are neutral, when the evidence is pretty clear that they set out to sway elections. You can watch the Sergey Brim upset video after Trump won in 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/09/13/google-video-...

I don't have problem with them having a side. And acting honestly and openly or even making one sided campaign contributions.

I have a problem with a reinforcing circle, where they censor to help elect a government which then rewards their censorship with contracts. At that point they become state actors, censoring on behalf of the state. and I think this is the real issue. And I think we are pretty much there.

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

#107

Post by jacob2484 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

partiallypro wrote: post #65

Merkel has stated that she didn't believe it was good that Facebook/Twitter banned Trump from their platforms fwiw.

She also very strongly condemned what happened on Jan 6 and blamed Trump for it. She's right on both fronts.

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

#108

Post by dec0dedab0de » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

rhcom2 wrote: post #49

scotty79 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

"genetic information" is a protected class, so you could not discriminate against anyone based on their natural hair color. You could however ban people with blue hair.

edit: Even if genetic information doesn't work for hair color. "Color" is already a protected class, so it's a moot point.

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

#109

Post by kmeisthax » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

throwawayswede wrote: post #46

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 fro…

The thing about Twitter is that they had rules that Trump was breaking regularly; and invented an entirely new "world leaders policy"[0] and "public interest policy"[1] to justify not banning him. They even exempted him from DMCA repeat-infringer policies[2] when music artists started taking down his tweets with their music in them. Had Twitter not intervened on January 9th, Trump would have been gotten banned anyway when he left office, purely because of him no longer being an elected politician.

My personal opinion is that even if the thing that gets banned or removed finds an audience (and it will), it's still a good idea for any platform - from a tiny webforum to a billions-strong social network - to have speech rules that are fair and reasonably enforced. It's not fun to be on a platform where a handful of celebrities and politicians (incl. Trump) are regularly flouting rules you have to follow.

Furthermore, I'd much rather be in a community in which the loudest and most obnoxious users are shown the door, purely for my own sanity. Free-for-alls stop being fun when they outgrow their original userbase.

[0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead...

[1] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere...

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/could-trumps-twitter-account-be-dmc...

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

#110

Post by ryanSrich » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

namlem wrote: post #88

ryanSrich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Let the people decide. HN deals with this well enough.