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

371–380 of 471 posts

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

#371

Post by sib »

scotty79 wrote: post #35
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?

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.

Ehhh, if a store is the analogy, YouTube is choosing their products here, which is exactly what stores do.

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

#372

Post by krastanov »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #346
unethical_ban wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but I think "companies" and "individuals" are very different, and discussions around corporate responsibility and society are different from regulating social behavior between two individuals.

So what about regulating it between three individuals? Or four? Or four hundred? At what point does collective social behavior become (y)our concern?

Since when is a mathematical definition necessary for this? Finding the "exact line of separation" between a couple of individuals and a powerful megacorp sounds like a fun mental puzzle, but it is not something that comes up in practice. What is the thought experiment in which finding the exact delineation is of importance? On the other hand, it is pretty easy to distinguish the limiting cases. This is like worrying about how large an asteroid has to be in order to be called a planet.

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

#373

Post by drdeca »

throwawayboise wrote: post #104
Phil_Latio wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does YouTube's TOS really not contain statements giving them the ability to stop hosting any video, at any time, for any reason? The highest court in Germany (for civil and criminal proceedings) wrote this in one of their rulings: > Depending on the circumstances, especially if private companies - as in this case - move into a dominant position and take over the provision of the framework conditions of public commu…

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.

I think that, at least if you replace "shouldn't get to" with "shouldn't", then for some values of "position yourself to be", this would be right.

I feel like it is largely a question of what expectations you work to produce among users and potential users.

If people are actively aware of the organization saying "we can remove videos on a whim if we want to, and we very well might do so", and especially if they are generally known to occasionally do that in practice, and this isn't a surprise to any users with a reasonable level of awareness, then I think that's probably fine.

But if the impression they give to a typical reasonable person is that they are "a platform for almost everyone that behaves according to fixed rules, where you can be reasonably assured that if you follow the stated rules your content will stay available, as much as we are able to accomplish this", but then they go around removing videos on a whim / because they have a grudge against someone / because someone paid them to / whatever , then that's not good, because they aren't being honest about the service they provide.

Whether the govt has any place making an organization who is misbehaving in that particular way stop, I'm, not sure one way or the other.

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

#374

Post by drdeca »

hexane360 wrote: post #356
eli wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

But Germany can't do that because it would be against Germany's constitution.

s/can't/probably wouldn't/

It is entirely possible for countries to do things which are against their constitution.

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

#375

Post by [deleted] »

ravenstine wrote: post #325
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.

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by [deleted] »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #259
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.

A knife can do even more harm to the user, but they are still sold. "Can do harm" is a slippery slope.

[deleted]

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

#377

Post by thr0wawayaway »

heavyset_go wrote: post #204
SamBam wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers objecting to content is as old as television, and even older, and is certainly not owned by "hyperliberals." For example, Conservatives demanded radio stations stop playing the Beatles, and, only slightly more recently, the Dixie Chicks. They called up advertisers as well. You could probably find people complaining to artists' patrons in Medieval texts, if you looked.

> only slightly more recently, the Dixie Chicks. They called up advertisers as well. If you want recent examples, look at WAP, its Super Bowl and Grammy's performances, Lil Nas X, or the NFL and Colin Kaepernick. There's also the witch hunt and boycott on teachers, companies and anyone else they believe are part of a nationwide critical race theory conspiracy.

Anyone claiming that critical race theory is a "conspiracy" is either massively misinformed, or being actively deceptive in order to push that very ideology. The National Education Association, a union with about 2.3 million members, has not only affirmed the existence of it, but is actively pushing for its inclusion in schools[1][2]:

"Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT)"

"Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project."

"Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.

This isn't limited to universities, either - it's being taught in K-12 schools[3]:

"Responding to prompts such as “In the last year, I have learned _____ about race and racism,” and “One way I will work for racial equity in my work,” teachers say:

“American society makes it hard to have high hopes.” Racism infests the nation’s “entire fabric.” Everyone must “lean into the discomfort.” “Older millennials are disappointingly racist.” “Aspects of the anti racist movement have been co-opted by neoliberal corporations, and reactionarily [sic] opposed by many even mainstream conservative thinkers.” Racism is “layered into everything we do at school.” We must “share the harsh reality of the BIPOC and LBGTQI communities with our students.” “Discuss issues of equity as arising in most every book I teach.”

Oh, and the statement by the NEA was removed from its website shortly after[4] (https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/ now redirects to the homepage), which is only further evidence for the fact that many of those pushing this ideology are simultaneously attempting to gaslight and actively lie to their opponents in an attempt to convince the public that it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure why you used the phrase "witch hunt" when the ideology clearly exists and is actively being pushed in education around the United States. Perhaps you meant to use the phrase "accountability culture"?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210702133611/https://ra.nea.or...

[2] https://nypost.com/2021/07/04/teachers-union-vows-to-fight-b...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/teacher-p...

[4] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/national-education-associat...

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

#378

Post by exporectomy »

eli wrote: post #328
the_lonely_road wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You know that Germany does actually outlaw promotion of certain political parties, right? Hopefully you agree German law is bad or you're disagreeing with yourself.

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

#379

Post by zajio1am »

rhcom2 wrote: post #49
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. 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.

> But you can mostly pick and choose your customers outside of discriminating against a protect class (in the US).

Yes, but this is about Germany and not US, and (AFAIK) consumer protection laws in Europe generally prohibit stores to pick and choose customers arbitrarily.

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

#380

Post by Zenst »

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…

I also do wonder, how grey the area of hate crime is in some countries and might of seen YouTube guilty of that possibly if they had left it up, certainly the comments section would of been a light to the moths.
Post reply on HN