Live data from Hacker News

Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

mediaite.com

411–420 of 471 posts

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

#411

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.

Is that really what we want. Most language is allowed under US law (which is a good thing imo), but does YouTube really need to allow hate speech, brigading, or astroturfing?

Clearly the line is not 'all speech that is allowed in the US'?

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

#412

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.

Is that really what we want. Most language is allowed under US law (which is a good thing imo), but does YouTube really need to allow hate speech, brigading, or astroturfing? Clearly the line is not 'all speech that is allowed in the US'?

the question is not which kind of speech do we want to allow, but who gets to decide that. we don't want government to decide that because its decision is absolute and leaves no room for escape, hence the laws for free speech, but the german court effectively argues that on a platform as dominant as youtube, censorship has the same impact as government censorship and should therefore be treated the same.

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

#413

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.

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

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

#414
post #410

It would be nice if google simply ceases operation in Germany and blame its government for adding difficulties and then watch the germans infuriate over their own government.

Youtube already tried [1] this for seven years with music videos in their licensing disagreement with the GEMA. And the world didn't break down in Germany, even though plenty of Germans were infuriated, which is why I guess they came to an agreement in the end... [1] https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-youtube-music-deal-in-germany-...

a lot of germans sided with youtube on this one. the overreach of the GEMA is a thorn in the side of many music producers and consumers

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

#415

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.

Is that really what we want. Most language is allowed under US law (which is a good thing imo), but does YouTube really need to allow hate speech, brigading, or astroturfing? Clearly the line is not 'all speech that is allowed in the US'?

Why should YouTube allowed to dictate what hate speech means? From the country I am in, the party that must not be named is notorious in making hate speeches, and the videos are widely available on YouTube. YouTube is a private entity that positioned itself as a huge repository of public opinions and videos, it must not decide arbitrarily based on a stupid algorithm what is correct. They must be regulated.

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

#416
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.

*'Old liveleak-style. The current version is somewhat of a joke.

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

#417

Youtube Alternatives : Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube

> Bitchute Never heard of them, but they seem to have chosen a poor name that might be censored elsewhere due to the first five letters.

I don't know if it still works like this but the initial idea with that one was that they would use the bittorrent protocol to help out with their hosting bandwidth any video you're currently watching would be peer-to-peer transferred to other users.

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

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

Well, this sure looks like a witch hunt[1] in which people were frothing with rage, becoming violent and getting arrested[2] at a school board metting because they didn't get their witch/CRT when they went looking for one to burn.

According to that same mob, when they couldn't find the critical race theory at the school board meeting, everything they didn't like, along with diversity training, suddenly became critical race theory[3]:

> While critical race theory was not on the agenda, parents and community members accused the school district of requiring teachers to take a diversity training that discusses the concept and then teaching it to students. They also criticized the school board for proposing a policy that would allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns and use the restroom that corresponds with their asserted gender identity.

That sounds and looks like a witch hunt for teachers to me.

Also, this is where the conspiracy comes in. Everything conservatives don't like is critical race theory now, and that's by design[2]:

> Christopher Rufo, a prominent opponent of critical race theory, in March acknowledged intentionally using the term to describe a range of race-related topics and conjure a negative association.

> “We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” wrote Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’”

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/partisan-war-over-teaching-...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/pandemonium-at-virginia...

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/us/loudoun-county-school-boar...

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

#419
post #164

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.

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

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

#420
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

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.

Post reply on HN