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

111–120 of 471 posts

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

#111

Post by josteink »

tylersmith wrote: post #19
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…

> YouTube unsuccessfully argued the video violated its policies on Covid-19 “misinformation.” It sounds like YouTube's stance is that the video may cause harm to their users; one of their criteria for removal.

> the video may cause harm

Or let me try, is “hateful”?

Yeah. That about clears it up, I guess. Clear as mud.

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

#112

Post by alpaca128 »

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…

> Hosting someone's video for free without even interrupting it with ads seems like the opposite of censorship to me.

Doesn't demonetization on YT just mean the ads still run but the money doesn't flow to the creator anymore? Considering YouTube does it that way with copyright claims and also automatically added ads to previously ad-free videos just because they could, it would surprise me if they'd remove video ads by themselves.

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

#113

Post by dqpb »

chomp wrote: post #13

What's the law in question? If someone posts something that (in my opinion alone) is ridiculous as a comment on my blog and I remove it, would I have to pay a fine in Germany? Why is it okay for the government to compel speech? Edit: Looks like it's for not upholding its terms of service.

What would you think about a telecom that prevents you from calling someone because of the things they’ve been saying over the phone?

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

#114

Post by namlem »

throwawayswede wrote: post #93
kthejoker2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a ton of actual evidence that removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks: https://www.axios.com/reddit-hate-speech-policies-reduction-... https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/trump-twitter-faceboo...

That's not what I said. To reiterate, what I'm saying is: Shady ideas fester in the dark. Banning won't help society. Exposure and discussion does. But the new and very different point that you're making, which is "removing bad actors improves the quality of information on social networks", is also very disputable and shaky. - First link is "Reddit says that the rules Reddit made helped Reddit." is not exactly impart…

The "marketplace of ideas" is a fiction that has long since been debunked. The best ideas arent the ones that win out, it's the loudest ones and the ones that appeal to our most base emotions that win. Only a small percentage of people actually possess intellectual curiosity. Most just mindlessly follow social trends.

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

#115

Post by jacob2484 »

tynpeddler wrote: post #52
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. The same way a store can't kick someone out who's running around saying racial slurs to everyone? The same way the New York Times is required to print every letter to the editor that is sent to them? The store example doesn't hold up at all for a number of reasons and online communities have had extra legal standards since the beginning o…

NY Times is not a platform

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

#116

Post by takeda »

brink wrote: post #73
rzzzt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example, some people consider GOTO statements to be harmful.

Or more precisely; some people don't. /s

Actually that's a good analogy.

If there weren't people that blindly accepting it as the truth and verified everything this wouldn't be bad, in fact would be good because it could drive attention to something that perhaps was ignored.

Unfortunately large part of population has no idea how to do fact checking, and what's worse many take their news from the Facebook.

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

#117

Post by neverminder »

pbreit wrote: post #55
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" 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".

They've opened Pandora's box, because now every Joe and Karen realized they can weaponize censorship by being offended by everything.

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

#118

Post by realityking »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #71
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…

Isn't it kind of implied that if you own a platform, you retain the discretion to remove stuff at any time, unless otherwise prohibited? The YouTube terms of service can be updated at any time, and will never include language promising to never take down content.

That argument would imply that the terms of service are worthless as the platform owner can do whatever they want. That’s not how contracts work, at least not in Germany.

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

#119

Post by syshum »

eli wrote: post #102
syshum wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we have proven time and time again that you can not actually create your own platform, if you try then come after your hosting providers, your network provider, your advertisers, your payment processors, and if that fails they find your family to go after their employers, etc etc etc

So the "just create your own platform" trope has be tried and failed.

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

#120

Post by ghayes »

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…

Is this not in direct conflict with the quote from the article / OP. The summary should have this been “regardless of the the contract, we hold that …” which is different from the aforementioned quote:

> The German court held that YouTube failed to make its enforcement authority clear in its contract with the account operator who posted the video.

Post reply on HN