Curious: Why can Germany fine YT for something that happened in Switzerland?
It looks and sounds like imperialism, but perhaps there’s a more benign reason?
Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
201–210 of 471 posts
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
So people on HN suffer from memory loss? 'hyoerliveral boogeyman' is actually a very accurate description of the pervasive and ongoing censorship across platforms, service providers, and many others. What else do you call the complete removal of parler? The on going suppression of covid news? The ongoing suppression of even discussing the 2020 election fraud? Facebook warning people that they are being exposed to ext…
> What else do you call the complete removal of parler? Failure to adhere to terms and services or to express intent to adhere to them going forward. Parler couldn't or wouldn't stop people from breaking their providers' terms of service and didn't show a good-faith effort towards doing so. Other right-wing outlets do do those things, and have not gotten drilled despite their odious beliefs.
at nomemerror (I cannot reply directly)
I don't understand why your comment is flagged and dead! You are making a perfectly reasonable point. HN admins, what is unacceptable about what is being stated - I genuinely do not see it.
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#203Naval 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.
True, once you start deleting videos, then leaving any up is a political decision. That's why, as a platform, you should not be deleting any videos, other than those that violate the law.
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> only slightly more recently, the Dixie Chicks. They called up advertisers as well.
If you want recent examples, look at WAP, its Super Bowl and Grammy's performances, Lil Nas X, or the NFL and Colin Kaepernick. There's also the witch hunt and boycott on teachers, companies and anyone else they believe are part of a nationwide critical race theory conspiracy.
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#205We 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.
[deleted]
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#206Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#207> 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.
Recipe for chilli sauce may cause harm. It's not a good argument.
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#208Earlier 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.
True, once you start deleting videos, then leaving any up is a political decision. That's why, as a platform, you should not be deleting any videos, other than those that violate the law.
The law is also subjective, there is no fixed law. There is ever-updating case law and dynamic precedence, and it differs by county<state<country.
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, when did they do this? I actually think Germany has it backwards here. If the German government wants to provide a free-speech "safe zone", they should provide it themselves. You're encouraging government coercion of action.
> If the German government wants to provide a free-speech "safe zone", they should provide it themselves. But that is what they are doing here, no? They just use Youtube as the way to provide it. Governments doesn't have to run businesses themselves, private actors are much better at running the day to day stuff usually. Similarly if you own a huge amount of land and build a city there and let lots of people move in,…
but the government isn't paying YouTube to host videos. eminent domain and related takings require compensation
Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "marketplace of ideas" is a fiction that has long since been debunked I don't think it's been "debunked" as you say. Provide evidence. A few examples is not evidence to make such a blanket statement. > 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. Again, very much disagree with this. If you look short term that may be true, but lon…
Oh really? Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise? Why do people still believe in ancient mythologies that contradict scientific knowledge that has been available for centuries? Maybe on the scale of millenia ideas based in truth are more likely to dominate, but I don't see how you could make that claim about history when our current paradigm of empirical knowledge is only a few ce…
> Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise?
Why do you say it's on the rise? Have you considered that there's lot more people, or that that the internet and various "communities" on the web just gave extra amplification to all sort of ideas? This is exactly why nothing should be banned. If you want wrong ideas to be corrected, you let them be discussed in the open. If you start pulling down videos that talk about flat earth you're gonna end up with grouping all people who think like that in a community where they only get exposed to ideas that affirm their erroneous belief.
> and already it seems as though cracks are starting to form.
again, provide examples or evidence for how and where you see this.