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

71–80 of 471 posts

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

#71

Post by devoutsalsa »

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.

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

#72

Post by throwawayswede »

hvac wrote: post #45
silicon2401 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you would agree to the following equivalent: > State violence is being used to force a christian bakery to bake (gay/muslim/etc) cakes it finds objectionable. Who's the villain here? The more you open service to the public, the more control over your output you lose because then it becomes a matter of discrimination.

Having a certain political opinion is not a protected class in the US

That's not what this is about. In both cases, the state is forcing an company to do something they don't want. The only difference is that you agree with the one but not the other.

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

#74

Post by devoutsalsa »

strogonoff wrote: post #31
throwawayswede wrote: post #2

Good. I'd rather live in chaos than a world controlled by these technocrats. Let's do Twitter while we're at it.

Losing control is what big social wants. The more they are regulated, the more intimate they are with the government, the safer and more entrenched their status. They already enjoy network effects and lock-in of their users; more rules widen the moat around the established players who got huge in the early unregulated days.

And the more compliance becomes a cost, the harder it is for underfunded upstarts to sneak in & grab marketshare.

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

#75

Post by ryanSrich »

pbreit wrote: post #55
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…

"They caved to censoring things that were reasonable" I'd argue that much of their censorship was not reasonable at all. None of it was illegal. Mostly just differences of opinion. My "information" is your "misinformation".

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 information they don’t want shared isn’t shared.

People who think any platform has the right to censor information scare the shit out of me. Save for things that are illegal, every platform should be neutral. Moderation should algorithmically be tied to the law.

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

#76

Post by iamdbtoo »

anm89 wrote: post #23
iamdbtoo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The platform ends up being collateral damage in some political war they never cared about in the first place and they can never win because no matter who they bend too, it automatically enrages the other side. To me, the fact that they don't care about it is the problem. Those companies are having issues because they have no moral or ethical compass. It's become untenable for them to remain neutral because there is…

You seem to assume that if they cared, they'd be on your side. What makes you think that that's the case? They are first and foremost accountable to shareholders who want profit. It's unlikely that they view the world the same way you do. You probably don't want them throwing their weight around You can argue that you don't like that they are accountable to their shareholders but it is true.

No, I don't assume that. That's a very wrong assumption on your part.

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

#78

Post by namlem »

syshum wrote: post #57
nemothekid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…

And why did "advertisers threatened to boycott" due to pressure from "hyperliberal's" that are prputally offended by everything. They tried to get YT to do it, when YT ignored them they went after the money... It is right from the liberal playbook

The first Adpocalypse preceded that. Rather, it was part of an internal drive to focus on more "family-friendly" content. Iirc, it was actually the presence of Islamic State propaganda on the site that was part of the motivation.

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

#79

Post by takeda »

voxic11 wrote: post #43
nemothekid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…

Google's response to pressures from advertisers wasn't to censor anything. They just demonetized videos that the advertisers didn't want to be associated with. Hosting someone's video for free without even interrupting it with ads seems like the opposite of censorship to me. There may be something interesting to say about how the desires of advertisers shapes our discourse, but its not censorship (in this case at lea…

Doesn't matter, they still used this as censoring (claiming YouTube cut funds to kill them).

I even saw (this mostly was Facebook, but also was done on YouTube) where the channel/fan page purposefully switching videos to private while talking they are being censored.

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

#80

Post by anm89 »

iamdbtoo wrote: post #76
anm89 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to assume that if they cared, they'd be on your side. What makes you think that that's the case? They are first and foremost accountable to shareholders who want profit. It's unlikely that they view the world the same way you do. You probably don't want them throwing their weight around You can argue that you don't like that they are accountable to their shareholders but it is true.

No, I don't assume that. That's a very wrong assumption on your part.

But if you know in advance, that their actions would be against your goals, why do you want them more active not less?
Post reply on HN