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

281–290 of 471 posts

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

#281

Post by namlem »

supergirl wrote: post #250
namlem wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why Trump should be above the terms of service that all other users have to abide by.

it's not really about TOS though. it's about Twitter being legally allowed to remove any content from their website for whatever reason. the question is should they be allowed to do this given the monopoly they have. But I find it hilarious that Twitter/Google/etc. champion "free speech" in Russia, China, etc. yet in US they literally censored the sitting president and many people are OK with this.

There is certainly an argument to be made against arbitrary removals of content. I agree that perhaps there should be limits on networks above a certain size. However, Twitter banning Trump was anything but arbitrary. The fact that they didn't ban him sooner despite his frequent violations of their TOS is evidence that they were biased in his favor, if anything.

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

#282

Post by jokethrowaway »

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.

I don't think "big social" is a term used by any group of people, including people you disagree with. I think it's a neologism and it's a comprehensible one. I interpret it as a big business doing social media.

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

#283

Post by sharikone »

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

I imagine YouTube removing C tutorials because they "encourage harmful behaviors"

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

#284

Post by eli »

spoonjim wrote: post #203
eli wrote: post #40

Earlier 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.

Not deleting videos is also a political decision.

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

#285

Post by LegitShady »

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.

its not punishing youtube its making sure private market forces don't distort speech rights across the entire country, as they are doing in the US.

Companies exist to benefit the state and the people. If a company is so successful it distorts rights for everyone and puts fundamental rights at risk, it's not 'punishing' the company even though it might feel like it. It's making sure the conditions that created success for youtube remain in place for future generations - free speech to some degree, competition, etc.

I think corporate personhood and corporate rights are a cancer on society and the corporatism/corporate state/fascism-lite that the west is already deep into is destroying the fundamental freedoms in the country. Disney will always have more money than you to argue for their corporate rights against your personal rights.

This ruling is wisdom.

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

#286

Post by josefx »

8ytecoder wrote: post #239
josefx wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you will be required to serve non alcoholic drinks.

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

#287

Post by namlem »

travismark wrote: post #197
namlem wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

practicing the 'marketplace of ideas' led to the single most important idea/practice/accomplishment in history - the constitution of knowledge. just read jonathan rauch's new book. sure there are threats to this way of learning and understanding, and it isn't perfect. but it's the best we have, and it has not been debunked

To clarify, I belive that the marketplace of ideas is still a useful principle, and I absolutely am worried about censorship in certain domains. However, like any market, the marketplace of ideas is vulnerable to market failures. The idea that everywhere should be a marketplace of ideas is deeply unwise in my view. There should be areas where people can discuss any ideas freely, but I think it is foolish to deny the idea that information can be dangerous in some contexts. Look no further than the needless deaths caused by anti-vaxx conspiracy theories. To have a healthy marketplace for ideas, you need some degree of structure.

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

#288

Post by bakuninsbart »

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.

"Punishing" isn't really the right word, although it certainly feels that way from their position. As democratic societies, we've long felt it necessary to restrict and regulate monopolies and oligoplolies.

I've recently had to talk to my internet provider, and that certainly increased my citizen's fervor in regulating companies in dominant positions, because every company will immediately turn around to milk/punish consumers, and try to influence politics for their benefit.

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

#289

Post by bakuninsbart »

8ytecoder wrote: post #239
josefx wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your pub, for example, refuses to serve people of color, then yes, the government will come in and shut it down.

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

#290

Post by jokethrowaway »

throwawayswede wrote: post #18
xxpor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?

The company doesn't find anything objectionable. It's the Who (a political org that has nothing to do with science) that is dictating what YouTube should do. YouTube and other technocrats believe that can tell people how and what they should think. With that being said, forcing a private company with state violence is not good either, unfortunately there's no magic wand to wave and reset everything. We shouldn't be p…

I see where you're coming from but I disagree that the WHO is the source or the holder of power. They don't have enough money for that.

The WHO is probably just another puppet in the hands of richer state actors, as the infamous Taiwan Skype Interview show us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE

Besides, I don't even think the people involved in YouTube and on a similar level are directly influenced by anyone. They're just a liberal company parroting their party's political line and not noticing how totalitarian these measures are.

It's people higher up setting the party line that are probably on the payroll of richer state actors. Most likely they also own the opposition to make sure nothing happens whoever is elected.

Post reply on HN