Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

Post by wesleywt » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

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.

Post by licebmi__at__ » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 3:38 AM UTC

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?

Post by scythe » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 3:40 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #235

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…

Facebook is also censoring as misinformation this article about the effects of face masks on children published by the American Medical Association. Now the findings might be right or they might be wrong; we won't know until the experiment is reproduced. But it's bizarre and inappropriate for Facebook to "fact check" legitimate scientific research when the actual facts aren't even known yet. Walach H, Weikl R, Prenti…

Post by em-bee » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 3:53 AM UTC

josefx wrote: post #286

8ytecoder wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but it’s still my property and you can’t make me serve a beer I don’t like.

But you will be required to serve non alcoholic drinks.

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 3:57 AM 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.