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

301–310 of 471 posts

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

#301

Post by anigbrowl »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #108
rhcom2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. But you can mostly pick and choose your customers outside of discriminating against a protect class (in the US). If you don't want to do business with people with brown hair, no one is stopping you.

> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. But you can mostly pick and choose your customers outside of discriminating against a protect class (in the US). If you don't want to do business with people with brown hair, no one is stopping you. "genetic information" is a protected class, so you could not discriminate against anyone based on their natural hair color. You could however…

Are you sure about that? Suppose I have a store and wish to ban redheads.

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

#302

Post by vbezhenar »

jMyles wrote: post #221
vbezhenar wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a website does not honour legal request, it'll get blocked, so its entire content will be effectively removed for all citizens. The proper approach IMO is to honour legal requests, but provide transparency and display some information about blocked content, like who made the request to block it and so on. Of course content must only be blocked for requests originating from that specific country.

> If a website does not honour legal request, it'll get blocked If that is happening, then the architecture of the internet needs to take more evolutionary steps. If the state can censor the internet, there's nothing 'inter' about it. It's just a network, subject to the whims of its flailing predecessor.

> If that is happening

Yes, that is happening for many years. China being the most known state, but AFAIK even well-recognized first-world democratic countries like UK block some websites.

> then the architecture of the internet needs to take more evolutionary steps.

Adoption of IPv6 is a good example that architecture of the Internet is pretty much set in stone at this moment. We can put more layers on top of it, like Tor network, but underlying protocols are still IPv4/IPv6 with enough meta-information to allow efficient blocking of protocols or resources.

I have some hopes that new TLS standards with hostname encryption (ECH) along with CDN networks will make blocking impossible. But even that is easily circumvented with government MITM. Kazakhstan already deployed all the necessary hardware and did some successful tests on scale. Browsers blocked its root certificate, but will they block (imaginary) China root certificate, losing 1.5B users?

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

#303

Post by bobthechef »

tjs8rj wrote: post #265
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.

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 id…

Absolutely. It isn't collectivism to regulate industries and companies that have enormous power to do good or harm. This idea that private property is unconditionally off limits is radically individualist and libertarian and just as bad as collectivism. We aren't atomized individuals. We all live in a society with a proper order and a common good. When a company begins to do harm to the common good, it must be regulated (or at least certain activities should be criminalized which is probably a better default in general than regulation). The notion that "I can do what I want" as long as it takes place in the private sphere is absurd. The private is distinct from the public, but it also affects the public and vice versa. Thus the presumption is in favor of not regulating private activity, but not an absolute and universally binding one.

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

#304

Post by Hamuko »

josefx wrote: post #276
devoutsalsa wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being responsible for writing the individual ToS for ever nation on Earth. That sounds hard.

They probably didn't bother at all. Not long ago Apple got fined because they implied that they would only provide one year warranty unless you paid for more, in the EU two years are the absolute minimum and telling your customers otherwise is not an option. As far as I could tell they just wrote the US version and translated that for every non English speaking country. Google might also be intentionally lazy, the Go…

Apple's Finnish warranty conditions still say that they offer a limited one (1) year warranty on their products. However, the warranty terms start with a bolded section about consumer protection laws and how this limited one (1) year warranty is an additional protection offered voluntarily by the manufacturer, and that it does not replace the rights given to consumers by these laws or in fact apply in claims made under consumer protection laws.

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

#305

Post by xdennis »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #71
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…

Isn't it kind of implied that if you own a platform, you retain the discretion to remove stuff at any time, unless otherwise prohibited? The YouTube terms of service can be updated at any time, and will never include language promising to never take down content.

I think it's just an American thing to treat private companies like the Wild West.

Companies have obligations too, and I think that in Europe (compared to the USA) more people would agree that it's better to limit companies if it benefits people.

Certainly, in this case, it's better for people to have their protests heard than for Google to flex it's censorious whims.

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

#306

Post by bostonsre »

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.

They made an app that has the power to sway public opinion and they reap billions of dollars of profit from it. They can afford the burden that they took. If they want to participate in the economy and society, it seems only logical and right that they are required to not have a detrimental impact on society. We don't allow companies to do whatever they can do when chasing profits. We don't allow companies to pollute however much they want so they can make more money, we don't allow car companies to make death trap cars, etc.

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

#307

Post by tylersmith »

cronix wrote: post #39
tylersmith wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> may cause harm Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."

Maybe that's why their challenge failed.

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

#308

Post by xdennis »

xxpor wrote: post #10
throwawayswede wrote: post #2

Good. I'd rather live in chaos than a world controlled by these technocrats. Let's do Twitter while we're at it.

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

Google hosts billions of hours of video. It doesn't mind a few videos. They never argued that the costs are an issue.

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

#309

Post by CountDrewku »

xxpor wrote: post #10
throwawayswede wrote: post #2

Good. I'd rather live in chaos than a world controlled by these technocrats. Let's do Twitter while we're at it.

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

What are your thoughts on net neutrality?

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

#310

Post by rocqua »

the_optimist wrote: post #163
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.

Certainly not all forms of regulation result in regulatory capture. Simply following this German model where Google/Youtube isn't allowed to censor certain ideas doesn't lend itself to regulatory capture.

The advantage is not just 'regulatory capture'. There is also an inherent moat in being a regulated industry.

Any new players will need to figure out the regulations, compliance, licenses and pitfalls before they can start to challenge you. That is a lot of upfront costs that will take a long time to recoup. Hence helping the old players remain entrenched.

Post reply on HN