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

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

#261

Post by imwillofficial » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #158

strogonoff wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing control is what big social wants. The more they are regulated, the more intimate they are with the government, the safer and more entrenched their status. They already enjoy network effects and lock-in of their users; more rules widen the moat around the established players who got huge in the early unregulated days.

Saying things like "big social" does not make your argument more persuasive. It just makes you sound like part of the lunatic fringe. It also leaves people like me rather confused about what your point was in the first sentence.

So it’s proper behavior for you to go around calling names because you’re confused? Get a grip.

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

#262

Post by dnate » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

deminature wrote: post #247

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.

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.

Sure, but it's also the job of the government to oversee the power corporations have and how they wield it. No single corporation should be allowed to actively shape and censor information just because they are successful / a monopoly.

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

#263

Post by Zak » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:18 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…

I think it was inevitable that these platforms would start having content restrictions once they shifted to using machine-learning algorithms tuned to maximize each user's engagement.

For a significant fraction of users, the most engaging content will be psychologically manipulative - conspiracy theories, racism, political intrigue, and the like. I see the combination of an engagement machine and such content ethically problematic, but I don't think they're going to turn off the extremely-profitable engagement machine unless forced to, so they restrict content instead.

The trouble is the engagement machine is sophisticated, while the content restrictions are crude. This probably isn't sustainable in its current form, but there aren't easy answers to the problem. A sophisticated "bad" content suppression algorithm sounds pretty dystopian to me.

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

#264

Post by AdrianB1 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #257

gentleman11 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, you are right, but until the antitrust problem is solved, it is a content policy problem.

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

#265

Post by tjs8rj » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

deminature wrote: post #247

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.

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.

Yes. Not so much a punishment as a responsibility that comes with the position. The state isn’t special: if you have deep and fundamental influence over the lives of others, you are burdened with certain responsibilities. Who cares if youtube is a private company, and it’s not liking forcing them to respect rights is hurting their pocket book: if you have that much power over people, you are held accountable.

This idea that private companies earn special privileges in this regard because they were started by individuals needs to die.

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

#266

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

zucker42 wrote: post #237

eli wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Forcing Google to host content against their will is pretty close. I guess in this case it's better than nationalizing though, Google has to pay for the hosting, and you get to tell Google they're not allowed to delete videos.

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

#267

Post by re-al » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #244

re-al wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you start going on about "election fraud", as that poster did, I'll usually flag the post. In this case, with my reply, I preferred to point out the obvious mischaracterization and leave addressing the mendacious falsehoods to others, but it looks like others decided to do something about it.

Is it not possible to talk about election fraud? I believe that this really has happened historically.

I would be fine to agree with you if you have proven that there is not election fraud, but obviously having a different opinion is not proof.

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

#268

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

dnate wrote: post #262

deminature wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but it's also the job of the government to oversee the power corporations have and how they wield it. No single corporation should be allowed to actively shape and censor information just because they are successful / a monopoly.

[deleted]

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

#269

Post by Const-me » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #42

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.

Should movie theaters be allowed to select which movies they show?

There're many movie theaters, but only one youtube in the whole world.

Youtube and facebook are natural monopolies due to their network effect.

All the older natural monopolies, water networks, electricity networks, landline phone networks, railroad networks, and the rest of them are either nationalized, or regulated heavily.

It's long overdue to add social networks to the list.

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

#270

Post by eqvinox » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

I've tried to find the actual court decision, best match seems to be 4 W 118/21 (enter on https://www.justiz.sachsen.de/esamosplus/pages/index.aspx under "Aktenzeichen" & click "suchen", can't see any obvious way to link the PDF...)

However, that document does not actually order a fine. It warns about imposing one ("up to 250'000€") if Youtube doesn't remedy the problem. Considering it's now exactly 3 months later (decision dates April 13th), that lines up.

From what I understand (not a lawyer, yadda yadda) this is a purely civil matter and doesn't really go as far as some statement on free speech. The issue discussed mostly seems to revolve around which terms of service are valid and how they can be changed.