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

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

#321

Post by bellyfullofbac » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

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.

Sure he was "sitting president" but he was actually stoking flames of violence the day he got banned.

In general Twitter was a terrible enabler for Trump, he's such a coward that he didn't dare firing people face to face, he fired people with tweets. And it made him a keyboard hero conveniently attacking people using it, if he had to go in front of the press to spout his bullshit he surely would've been more reserved, because there'd be direct pushback for everything he said.

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

#322

Post by dane-pgp » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

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."

Well at least the government isn't mandating that all "harmful" content be taken off the web...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-ha...

(For what it's worth, the proposed law now refers to "safety" rather than "harms").

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

#323

Post by fnmall » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

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.

Terms and conditions are invalid in Germany (and probably much of Europe) if they run counter to established civil or criminal law. They are regularly thrown out in court.

For consumers, it is even better not to read the terms, because then they can say that they have been taken advantage of (it is harder to do that if you change a passage manually in a written contract).

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

#324

Post by miiir0 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:25 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?

Law overwrites contracts

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

#325

Post by ravenstine » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

deadalus wrote: post #32

Youtube Alternatives : Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube

All the alternatives are far-far-right as far as "trusted sources" are concerned. What is anyone supposed to do if even LBRY is considered a tool of radical right wing extremists? If you cant get your family and friends on it then its near worthless.

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

#326

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #303

tjs8rj wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regula…

The notion that "I can do what I want" as long as it takes place in the private sphere is absurd.

So what's your take on Lawrence v. Texas?

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

#327

Post by scotty79 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

tynpeddler wrote: post #52

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.

> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. The same way a store can't kick someone out who's running around saying racial slurs to everyone? The same way the New York Times is required to print every letter to the editor that is sent to them? The store example doesn't hold up at all for a number of reasons and online communities have had extra legal standards since the beginning o…

> The same way a store can't kick someone out who's running around saying racial slurs to everyone?

They can but not because the store has negative opinion about this behavior but because that behaving disorderly in public place is against the law. Actually they should just call the cops.

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

#328

Post by eli » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

the_lonely_road wrote: post #297

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I require guests in my house to take their shoes off. They don’t have to do it, they can just leave. But if they want to stay in my house they need to take their shoes off. No one is holding a gun to YouTube’s head and telling them they have to serve video content to Germans. They want to be in Germany serving video content, so it’s only fair and just that they should listen to the Germans and do what they say or lea…

A country isn’t really like your house though, is it?

Germany could probably tell Google not to host any videos from the opposition political party under penalty of fine or expulsion. Hopefully we agree that that would be bad?

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

#329

Post by xdennis » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

boring_twenties wrote: post #5

I'm not sure I like the notion of a private entity being forced to host content they don't want to host. If it only applied to effective monopolies like YouTube, I would be more inclined to agree with it, but the article doesn't seem to know anything about that.

There's nothing unusual about it. For example, in some places, if you want to open a store, you have to have X amount of parking spots available depending on the store size. It doesn't matter than you don't want to rent extra space to create a parking lot. You have to!

There are millions of other ways this is done. It's not unusual to have to host some files.

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

#330

Post by bobthechef » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 10:31 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?

Not absolutely. They shouldn't be able to show porn, for example, or some other destructive content. (And no, it's not a question of taste or opinion. That relativist claim is worthless and tired. We're not talking about vanilla or chocolate ice cream here.) I suppose in this particular case (and that matters: things like this can be particular) you would just criminalize those sorts of movies.

The idea that we shouldn't do such things because government could be used to impose horrible things is a bad one. Driving a car could kill you, but you wouldn't ban cars for that reason because cars are not bad in principle nor are they so dangerous that they should be banned. They are regulated, however, and this is good.