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

231–240 of 471 posts

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

#231

Post by onli »

yorwba wrote: post #200
onli wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that part makes no sense at all to me. Even if the ToS did not include a fitting clause for the misinformation removal I see no binding right for the user to have his video hosted. That's why I added the tangent about the political environment in Dresden.

The ToS provide the binding right for the user to have the video hosted. It's in the name "terms of service": you follow the terms and in return you're provided with a service. In this case, the plaintiff complied with the terms but was denied service. The court didn't approve of that. I doubt it has anything to do with their political alignment.

You're probably right. I assumed that there is a clause in the AGB permitting Youtube to in general not host a video if they don't want to. Or that there is something creating a Hausrecht in there, given them the right to chose a customer. Doesn't seem to be the case.

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

#232

Post by remarkEon »

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…

>wrote this in one of their rulings:

Which ruling? Have a link (in German is fine)?

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

#233

Post by fizk »

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…

I don't agree with this kind of reasoning at all.

Staying neutral, or alternatively, trying to appear neutral will most likely in itself enrage.

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

#234

Post by eli »

toast0 wrote: post #175
eli wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but I just don't agree. They're only different in the abstract. At some point an incredibly noxious (but legal) video gets posted, complaints pour in, and you are either continuing to host it or you aren't. That's a decision and having a policy of "we never remove legal videos" doesn't absolve you. Anyway, a social platform that only removes illegal content (not even spam?) sounds absolutely…

On a social platform where I'm only seeing content posted by my friends (or maybe content my friends interact with), anything dreadful I see is brought to me by my friends. If my friends bring me dreadful content that I don't like, I'm not sure we'll stay friends. If my friends are spamming, I'll ask them to stop and if they continue, I'm not going to stay friends (or at least I'll unfollow them where they're spammin…

I mean sure, but I don't see how that concept maps to YouTube.

It would be interesting to have a social platform where you can only see mutual connections. I imagine it'd have a hard time competing with email and group texts and all the other ways people who already know each other can stay in touch.

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

#235

Post by nradov »

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…

Facebook is also censoring as misinformation this article about the effects of face masks on children published by the American Medical Association. Now the findings might be right or they might be wrong; we won't know until the experiment is reproduced. But it's bizarre and inappropriate for Facebook to "fact check" legitimate scientific research when the actual facts aren't even known yet.

Walach H, Weikl R, Prentice J, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

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

#236

Post by whbrown »

eli wrote: post #152
throwawayboise wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like Germany should simply nationalize the platform if that's what they want.

It's not theirs to take.

And anyhow, the GDR dissolved over 30 years ago, I should think their economic policies died with them.

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

#237

Post by zucker42 »

eli wrote: post #152
throwawayboise wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like Germany should simply nationalize the platform if that's what they want.

Do you think Germany "nationalizing" YouTube is less extreme than this ruling?

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

#238

Post by eropple »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #184
eropple wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary export of places like that has proven to be brigading, harassment, and bigotry in the form of memes, so...no, not really. I have yet to hear a positive argument for their existence, and "well it collects the dirtbags!" is actually not one . I spent years tracking reactionary and fascist movements on the internet and how they interrelate and spread information; these sites more or less exist to do exactly…

> bigotry in the form of memes gasps and clutches pearls

The norming of bigotry should be recognized and acted against when it occurs. When that norming is done through (shitty) humor, it should be pointed out as such. Did you have a point to make?

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

#239

Post by 8ytecoder »

josefx wrote: post #230
pionar wrote: post #164

Earlier 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.

Think about it this way, you build something that looks like a pub, provides the services of a pub and say you are open for business. Would it be really that surprising that the state enforces laws that apply to pubs on your business or would you tell the health inspector to fuck off and open his own pub if he has problems with it?

Yeah, but it’s still my property and you can’t make me serve a beer I don’t like.

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

#240

Post by bsd44 »

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…

That's very encouraging. We should make this a law on the EU-level.
Post reply on HN