> 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
Perhaps in your jurisdiction, but in this hypothetical example, I guess not.
> 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)?
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.
Imagine being responsible for writing the individual ToS for ever nation on Earth. That sounds hard.
Imagine doing business and getting revenue in every nation on the Earth. That sounds hard.
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.
Sad you're getting downvoted, I was thinking about this the other day, if nations really want to limit applications on the internet, they need to create a free to use high quality national alternative, and personally I don't think this is an awful idea. Canadian "twitter" provided by a gov entity? I would for sure be interested in that. The ability to use a home grown twitter that I needed to use some government ID to log into and had been thought about sensibility, at least then I'd know what I'm getting myself into. I'm not saying it should replace regular internet, just that I wouldn't be apposed to more controlled nationalized alternatives. I'd like to talk to fellow Canadians, in the "comment section", in a manner that I know with over 80% confidence they're actually in Canada.
I was with you until the very end, when I feel like you threw away the argument by seemingly being open to "legal requests"; the "political wars" you get dragged into tend to be from politicians that are certainly making "legal requests": hell, if they aren't legal, they change the law! I feel like the core problem in many cases was building a system where someone gets to be arbiter of content in the first place: App…
> "...centralized systems and the arbiters they empower are the core problem and never work out, even if you like some of their decisions for some of the time." centralization is merely a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for dystopianism. you also need a ratcheting consolidation of power, especially money (provided by advertisers in this case) and attention/influence (provided by viewers). centralization is si…
It is not merely a "key" one, though, as it is (as you admit) a "necessary" one: we see centralized systems abused for reasons both lofty and petty by organizations both large and small; but, if you don't have (or at least make obvious... like, "come on", right?! these companies seem to have a giant "come at us" sign they wave around) some centralized chokepoint, then the problem disappears. At best, I would argue that these other influences you list are themselves centralizations that attempt to push platforms to be more centralized (whether for political, monetary, or whatever else gain). (Also, ancillary point: I would argue the explicit goal of the design of the US government is that it isn't centralized... those checks and balances come from how there isn't a centralized chokepoint of power; we are at our worst when we allow people to--when times seem good--undermine this decentralization by consolidating more power in one of the branches over the others.)
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.
Nice what-aboutism... Yes Conservatives used to be just as bad, I was out there in the 90's complaining about authoritarian conservatives. We libertarians did not mind our flank and Authoritarian liberals today are about 10000000x more of an issue than even the most extreme bible thumping conservative from the 90's ever was
I was thinking historical examples would be an interesting context in part because I didn't think anyone needed reminding of all the times in recent days and weeks that conservatives have tried to boycott or cancel things, but others have provided some examples of that if you're interested.
And "what-aboutism" was exactly the point, I was specifically pointing out that boycotting based on morals isn't in any way only the domain of "hyperliberals."
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I believe a website should be able to choose what videos it hosts. If it wants to host anything legal, liveleak-style - then that's fine. But if it decides to remove whatever video it wants then that also should be fine.
It’s not a website, it’s almost every video on the internet and competitors can’t exist because of network effects
Sounds like an antitrust problem not a content policy problem
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.
Isn't this punishing Youtube for their own success at achieving a dominant market position? They didn't position themselves as the de-facto public square so much as became one due to lack of competition.
YouTube's very “success” is “rewarding”.
But to me, it's not a punishment. It's a natural consequence of YouTube's dominant position: they have to start acting like it.
> 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.
A knife can do even more harm to the user, but they are still sold. "Can do harm" is a slippery slope.
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?
Seems more like the government ordering you to serve a disorderly patron you previously ejected