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

361–370 of 471 posts

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

#361

Post by throwawaysea »

nemothekid wrote: post #350
throwawaysea wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few points: 1. Google definitely censors things on their own as well. Their own search engine turns up a long list of examples, so I won't rehash them all here, but one illustrative example is their censorship of the dissenter plug-in ( https://reclaimthenet.org/google-chrome-web-store-bans-disse... ), which also seems to be an example of censorship collusion within the tech industry. 2. Google has a long history o…

> The James Damore fiasco is a great example of the internal political culture rearing its head and how it impacts who's comfortable speaking up and steering the company's culture I'm willing to accept the premise that Google could have neoliberal pressure on the company (I don't know if I would consider the pressure you allude to be progressive or left leaning). That said, James Damore's memo, if you've read it is n…

It was fully sourced with peer reviewed research, per my recollection. I also recall that the version of the memo circulated frequently on social media and in progressive news sources like Mother Jones was not the original, and in particular, omitted all the sourcing. Are you sure you didn’t see an edited version that was circulated specifically to malign Damore?

From Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University who was a Fellow and Consulting Scholar at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University (https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists...):

> The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right.

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

#362

Post by trhway »

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.

>Isn't this punishing Youtube for their own success at achieving a dominant market position?

No, it is just attaching some minimal responsibility to the enormous benefits that YT exploits their dominant market position for.

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

#363

Post by krick »

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…

Yeah, I remember that podcast, and I remember thinking that it sounds like it should be, but will it be so? Since then a little has happened to calm my doubts. Like, it wasn't Twitter that got bullied by Trump back when he was USA president, but very much otherwise. (You can say TikTok almost got bullied, but in the end it wasn't, and even then, it almost got bullied into something that some other tech-giants would love.) And while €100,000 might sound significant for some random citizen, is it for Google, really? Heck, is it even a nuisance?

(BTW, this is what I felt about many of Ravikant's statements: he sounds so wise, so believable, and I want to agree with him, because it fits my own philosophy so much, but as soon as I get distracted from the magic of his voice for a moment, I start doubting if all of it has any ground whatsoever or is it just make believe.)

Edit: However, I think I have to clarify that your interpretation isn't exactly how I remember his point. As I remember, the point was that openly censoring the content for any reason other than the court order is basically the moment where they lose the "plausible deniability" of being responsible for their content, i.e. they cannot be seen as "just a middleman" anymore (this is how they want to be seen). But it is close enough for the matter we are discussing right now.

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

#364

Post by rhcom2 »

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…

I think you're confusing genetic information with phenotype. I don't think the law works like you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...

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

#365

Post by mikem170 »

travismark wrote: post #209
username90 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Historically corporations were given a license to operate by the state, and limited liability conditional on their serving a public good.

Some people currently seem to have the attitude that a corporation can be protected by the state but not responsible for its actions that negatively impact the common good. This was not the original intention.

> But wether public or private, corporations were originally only granted special legal privileges by government, conditional on them serving some PUBLIC good. With special rights came special restrictions, and their operations were periodically reviewed for compliance with their stated purpose. However, over time the system of incorporation has been altered by corporations themselves, such that the benefits of state-grants have been kept, while the responsibilities discarded. [0]

[0] https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-com...

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

#367

Post by zadokshi »

josefx wrote: post #230
pionar wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s the wrong analogy. Phone service is the correct one. It’s something basically everyone uses. You should be able to call or group call anyone you want. The phone company can’t claim they own the phone lines so they decide which content can be discussed or who is allowed to make a phone call. It’s that simple.

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

#368

Post by yreg »

FabHK wrote: post #343
yreg wrote: post #123

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 should still stick to the contract it has made with its users (ToS). So just say that you reserve that right upfront.

Is that not the case?

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

#369

Post by the_optimist »

rocqua wrote: post #310
the_optimist wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I completely agree with this. I'd even argue that regulatory obligations should lapse without explicitly renewal.

Nonetheless, particularly on elements of values and principles: it is possible to create bright-line, lightweight, plain-English regulation. See the US Bill of Rights as an example. Let specific instances be litigated in the future, rather than specify all edge cases up front.

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

#370

Post by sib »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #266
zucker42 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reminder that Germany doesn't have the same definition of "freedom of speech" that the US does (not making the case that one is better than the other, but simply that they are different.)
Post reply on HN