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

461–470 of 471 posts

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

#461

Post by root_axis »

scotty79 wrote: post #444
root_axis wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because if it has that right it should have the full responsibility for everything it publishes. With no leeway I don't understand your reasoning. When you say "full responsibility" I assume you mean legal responsibility, as in, a website that removes posts by users should take full legal responsibility if users post illegal content, but I don't see the connection between the two ideas, the illegal content was stil…

> if users post illegal content If a platform decides to pick and choose then it's no longer a platform. It's a publisher. It's not the users that post illegal content. Users only send it privately to the publisher and publishers decides to make it publicly available and should bear full legal and moral responsibility for the act of publishing it. The whole invention of a term platform is so that tech companies can a…

> If a platform decides to pick and choose then it's no longer a platform. It's a publisher.

This isn't true though, the distinction you're making doesn't exist, it's still obviously a platform as well as a publisher.

> Users only send it privately to the publisher and publishers decides to make it publicly available

That's not how it works though. Users are free to upload anything they want to the platform and it's published automatically, if it is later determined to be illegal or otherwise in violation of the guidelines, standards or relevance, then it is removed.

> The whole invention of a term platform is so that tech companies can avoid responsibility of publishers.

There is no legal meaning to these words, they are merely a functional description of how these sites work and they are obviously both platforms and publishers.

> It can remove user submitted content but only if the laws requires for such content to be removed or if there are technical reasons to do that (content is too large, to popular, too unpopular, some time have passed, etc)

I understand that this is your stated position of how things ought to work, but I still don't see a reason why it should work this way, sites being able to remove content is useful for moderation and curation which are features that users like and want.

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

#462

Post by clairity »

saurik wrote: post #255
clairity wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "...centralized systems and the arbiters they empower are the core problem and never work out, even if you like some of their decisions for some of the time." centralization is merely a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for dystopianism. you also need a ratcheting consolidation of power, especially money (provided by advertisers in this case) and attention/influence (provided by viewers). centralization is si…

It is not merely a "key" one, though, as it is (as you admit) a "necessary" one: we see centralized systems abused for reasons both lofty and petty by organizations both large and small; but, if you don't have (or at least make obvious... like, "come on", right?! these companies seem to have a giant "come at us" sign they wave around) some centralized chokepoint, then the problem disappears. At best, I would argue th…

i think we're disagreeing on whether any level of centralization is acceptable, or even good (with centralization defined principly as the consolidation of people and resources here). i'd contend that yes, some degree of centralization is beneficial, but too much centralization gets overwhelmed by negative repercussions.

in this specific case, imagine if we had thousands of mini-youtubes, each with their own curational quirks. no single mini-youtube could unduly influence the whole zeitgeist. most (all?) will be flawed in their curatorial duties, but none could move public opinion in any meaningful way. viewers could also jump from one to another and be exposed to many different editorial perspectives, even without necessarily being cognizant of that. however, if every mini-youtube were relegated to being a single person each (i.e., no centralization), then we'd lose the benefits of aggregation and curation.

the problem of course, is that we societally accept size and growth as good things, and i'm arguing that they're only good to a certain point (and see your argument as saying all centralization is bad), and that we need to change incentives as a function of size/centralization, so that we get right-sized organizations, rather than unaccountable behemoths. our current incentives make right-sizing an unstable equilibrium point on that curve, which is why it doesn't happen.

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

#463

Post by linspace »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #453
linspace wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The clause only affects when the platform is big enough. It's a concentration of power in the hands of a few, certainly not the shareholders as you say in other comment. That such a concentration of power will be abused is almost a law of nature and so laws are put into place, the same way there are laws to prevent monopolies, to the detriment of shareholders also. You may think that this practicalities don't align w…

It's not an abuse of power if a) it's contractual and b) it's private property. One doesn't automatically become a victim, incapable of provide genuine consent to the terms offered, by virtue of the party offering the terms having a service that they badly want or need. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to convince a court of that. Courts, under common law, will invalidate any contract where the parties…

I do think the state is capable of managing very large organizations, like public education, health, infrastructure... And the political party in charge may obtain votes by doing a good work. But in the case of the media I think interests are not aligned. I think putting in place laws to regulate private companies is the lesser of two evils.

In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contracts, the most famous ones maybe related to mortgage conditions. I'm not sure if this is good or not in the long term, but it's the case.

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

#464

Post by syshum »

cratermoon wrote: post #167
syshum wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice what-aboutism... Yes Conservatives used to be just as bad, I was out there in the 90's complaining about authoritarian conservatives. We libertarians did not mind our flank and Authoritarian liberals today are about 10000000x more of an issue than even the most extreme bible thumping conservative from the 90's ever was

> used to be just as bad https://truthout.org/articles/right-wingers-are-taking-over-...

Do you have a non-biased source that provides actual facts not hyperbolic rhetoric?

Are these tax payer funded libraries, and could it be the fund reduction is simply a result of the fact that many, including myself, believe that libraries should not be funded by forcible taxation of the population.

This position is often turned by left sources as "raaaaccciiism"

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

#465

Post by CryptoPunk »

linspace wrote: post #463
CryptoPunk wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an abuse of power if a) it's contractual and b) it's private property. One doesn't automatically become a victim, incapable of provide genuine consent to the terms offered, by virtue of the party offering the terms having a service that they badly want or need. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to convince a court of that. Courts, under common law, will invalidate any contract where the parties…

I do think the state is capable of managing very large organizations, like public education, health, infrastructure... And the political party in charge may obtain votes by doing a good work. But in the case of the media I think interests are not aligned. I think putting in place laws to regulate private companies is the lesser of two evils. In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contract…

I would submit that any large organization, whether it's public education, health or infrastructure, can be heavily abused for political gain like providing patronage opportunities.

The Japanese infrastructure slush funds are a classic example of that.

And I would also submit that state intervention in healthcare and education has been a dramatic failure, with costs in these two sectors skyrocketing over the period in which the state expanded its role in them.

>>In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contracts, the most famous ones maybe related to mortgage conditions. I'm not sure if this is good or not in the long term, but it's the case.

If a court overturns a contract, that is fine. One of the roles of the state, in a free society, is to rule on contracts via its courts, and invalidate those that do not meet the bar for consent.

But legislative bodies do not engage in the same impartial and deliberative process as courts so they are not the proper venue through which to restrict private interactions.

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

#466

Post by CryptoPunk »

raxxorrax wrote: post #456
oefnak wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. A company is not a person. Also, the company did not have to go to jail, it got a fine.

"Punks" arguing for corporate rights to ban content in the name of human rights. I think I will take a stroll through the forest, maybe I meat a bear that plays guitar and sells refreshing lemonade. I am prepared for anything.

Punks don't rely on the state to force private citizens to let people use their platforms.

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

#467

Post by CryptoPunk »

marcel-garus wrote: post #457
CryptoPunk wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company belongs to its shareholders. Commandeering it violates the shareholders' rights to their property. All legal injunctions are predicated on the threat of imprisonment, even fines: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

In Germany, near the top of our most fundamental lawbook, the Grundgesetz, it says: > §14.2 GG: Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen. [0] Which roughly translates to: > §14.2 GG: Property obliges. Its use should also serve the public good. [0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_14.html

Any state control over private citizens can be rationalized in this way. Private property is a private creation, and the use of public resources by the individuals that create it should not be used as an excuse to deny its creators their rights over it, any more than the use of public resources by individuals should not be used to invalidate their right to free speech.

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

#468

Post by shdh »

holoduke wrote: post #332

A good move. Everything so big as YouTube should follow national laws. Otherwise private terms of policies become more part of society than national ones. Then the hundreds of years of fighting becomes nothing and we are back in a modern kingdom based society.

It would be interesting to apply a varying degree of regulation based on an organizations size/revenue.

Startups less regulation, global conglomerates more regulation.

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

#469

Post by em-bee »

em-bee wrote: post #413
ehsankia wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "national law" mean for a global platform though? Does Youtube only have to restore the video in Germany and still block it everywhere else? I don't even understand why Youtube should be forced by a country to host someone's content. I can understand the opposite (being forced by the government to take down content in their jurisdiction, that has been done before), but forcing a site to keep a video feels r…

youtube is effectively operating a bridge, or rather the majority of bridges in germany. it pays for maintenance but gets to charge a toll and keep the profits. however, in order to use this privilege, it does not get to decide who should be allowed to cross

it seems that some people disagree with the analogy. could you explain why?

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

#470

Post by kaba0 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #458
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.

Don't judge too quickly. The ruling also made clear that it is judges who determine if content violates the law. It was not the case here. But it also means that platforms would have to comply with the judiciary restricting content and face fines if they don't. That wouldn't be too positive for the net and its development under certain circumstances. Double-edged sword...

I don’t see how would it be a double-edged sword. It’s a meme, but we do in fact live in a society, with laws made mostly democratically by people (ideally) — which is the closest thing at this scale to a fair system. Why should a private company get to decide what it wants over the local laws? If it were to host child porn, should we be okay with that even though we collectively have voted to ban any form of pornography of minors?
Post reply on HN