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

421–430 of 471 posts

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

#421

Post by unishark »

lm28469 wrote: post #419
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.

> You're encouraging government coercion of action. And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in. Last time I checked laws still come from countries, not from Google. The world isn't America's private companies playground

So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans?

Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To restrict them is to restrict the choices of your own people to choose products they prefer. So what you're really arguing for is the majority in a country restricting the freedom of a minority in that same country.

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

#422

Post by lm28469 »

peakaboo wrote: post #420
lm28469 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're encouraging government coercion of action. And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in. Last time I checked laws still come from countries, not from Google. The world isn't America's private companies playground

Swedish government asked Google to remove YouTube news channels that was critical of the Swedish state owned media, and Google did. I think we are way past the illusion of democracy and governments protecting their people at this point.

I'm talking about national sovereignty of democratically elected governments.

They might have very different views than Americans and Google about what should or shouldn't exist.

As if America and its private companies have the monopoly of what's "right" and what it means to "protect the people" of the world, this is ridiculous

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

#423

Post by lm28469 »

unishark wrote: post #421
lm28469 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're encouraging government coercion of action. And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in. Last time I checked laws still come from countries, not from Google. The world isn't America's private companies playground

So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To restrict them is to restrict the choices of your own people to choose products they prefer. So what you're really arguing for is the majority in a country restricting the freedom of a minority in that same country.

> So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans?

How did you extrapolate that ? No

I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform.

You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit.

America isn't a role model, neither in politics nor culture, the world doesn't need to conform to what America think is right.

Also, YouTube doesn't exist to serve the people, certainly not, it exists to make money and uses tax evasion to pay as little as possible in most EU countries, if they wanted to serve the people they could start there

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

#424

Post by misja111 »

zadokshi wrote: post #367
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?

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.

So you would be ok with a phone company that doesn't allow certains groups of people to make phone calls? For instance, people whose political views it doesn't agree with? Or even worse, people with certain ethnical backgrounds?

Of course now you might say, if such a phone company existed, those people who were denied service could just choose another one. But if this company would be the one dominating the market, this would mean they couldn't reach all the people they would want to anymore. This is the analogy with Facebook.

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

#425

Post by lmm »

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?

At the point where a collective asks for the special privilege of forming a limited liability corporation?

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

#426

Post by zuminator »

syshum wrote: post #61
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.

Platforms that claim to be open content systems (i.e it is not topic limited like say a Mac Forum) should only remove content that is illegal in nature, i.e Sexual Exploitation of minors, True Threats, etc. > popular anti-vax since Anti-Vax has now been refined to include anyone that opposes government mandated vaccinations, I am a Vaxxed Anti-Vaxer as I oppose all government mandates. People should be free to choose…

> Platforms that claim to be open content systems...should only remove content that is illegal in nature

So if I were to continuously upload hours-long videos of digital noise, thousands of them, millions, YouTube ought to be obligated to host these ersatz videos, and not remove them unless they were deemed illegal? In that case, someone could in theory run a successful encrypted cloud backup business off YouTube's servers. Or just use YouTube as a massive versioning backup for their own personal data, confident in the knowledge that the files can never be deleted.

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

#427

Post by charrondev »

lm28469 wrote: post #419
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.

> You're encouraging government coercion of action. And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in. Last time I checked laws still come from countries, not from Google. The world isn't America's private companies playground

> And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in.

The biggest difference generally between a private enterprise (foreign or domestic) and a democratically elected government is that participation with the government and its rules are:

- compulsory - enforced by physical violence

If I disagree with googles rules I can avoid google. If I a disagree with the governments rules (for example tax rates they impose), there will be people with weapons to force compliance.

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

#428

Post by unishark »

lm28469 wrote: post #423
unishark wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To restrict them is to restrict the choices of your own people to choose products they prefer. So what you're really arguing for is the majority in a country restricting the freedom of a minority in that same country.

> So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? How did you extrapolate that ? No I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform. You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit. America isn't a role model, n…

You're the one who brought national origin into the thread. The arguments on both sides were made just fine without it.

As for the second point, yes and those examples are also cases of restricting their own citizens. Hence the discussion is still about rights of the citizenry versus their own government restricting them, not "rights" of companies as you put it.

The world is free to not use YouTube and always has been. And by the way I don't agree with many of the major websites' censorship decisions in the last couple years either. They depict only what a loud subset of America thinks is right.

Companies generally make money by serving people. I suppose there are business models where this isn't so (e.g. they exist to sue people or something, but exploiting govt's ability to take money by force instead), but in YouTube's case, they entice people the consensual way.

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

#429

Post by stOneskull »

namlem wrote: post #88
ryanSrich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Nothing these platforms censor or began censoring early on was anywhere near reasonable. It was all political grandstanding to show those in power that big tech are the good guys. They’ll do the political bidding of the elites and politicians will only threaten to hold companies responsible to gain points with their constituents. All the while the politicians and big tech are in bed with each ensuring the info…

So users who troll and harass other users, spam, post hateful content, etc. should never be banned? That's just leads to a precipitous decline in quality and drives other users away. Why would I want to spend my leisure time on a platform filled with 13 year-old shouting racial slurs?

> Why would I want to spend my leisure time on a platform filled with 13 year-old shouting racial slurs?

you wouldn't have to. and if they were the majority, then it would be democracy in action.

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

#430

Post by lm28469 »

unishark wrote: post #428
lm28469 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? How did you extrapolate that ? No I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform. You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit. America isn't a role model, n…

You're the one who brought national origin into the thread. The arguments on both sides were made just fine without it. As for the second point, yes and those examples are also cases of restricting their own citizens. Hence the discussion is still about rights of the citizenry versus their own government restricting them, not "rights" of companies as you put it. The world is free to not use YouTube and always has bee…

The vast majority of companies shaping the social discourse are American. You can't conveniently ignore the fact, it's inherently part of the discussion. I'm not drown in Gambian or Afghan cultural bs
Post reply on HN