3 ms·

I'm hoping the EU's General Data Protection Regulation is going to bite Google's arse for this (among many other things). Its Article 22 pretty much says that

by Sylos 9y ago

I'm hoping the EU's General Data Protection Regulation is going to bite Google's arse for this (among many other things). Its Article 22 pretty much says that you cannot impede the rights of a person based on an automated decision. Obviously there's exceptions for that rule, which Google is going to cling on as much as possible, but hopefully something comes out of it either way. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/

hellbanner 9y ago
What is the cost for doing this? eg. false copyright claims "My white noise video has copyright claims" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325
- jonesetc 9y ago
  It often comes with demonetization. It's especially a problem for people who make YouTube content for a living. Much, or possibly even most, of the income for these videos comes in a short burst when the video is first uploaded. This initial time can make up huge portions of a person's income.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    Are there no businesses which promote "back catalogs" for YouTube content?
Natanael_L 9y ago
Since Google is just a host I don't think a court would consider a right to post, Google gets to pick what they host, perhaps the court would however consider a charge on anticompetitive behavior.
- Sylos 9y ago
  I think, that's more of a US thing that people don't have a right to an offer. In Europe, it usually rather goes that it's a public offer, therefore anyone in principle has a right to take this offer, you can especially not exclude them because you dislike their skin color or sexual orientation etc., but they can forfeit this right under certain circumstances, for example if someone repeatedly steals from your grocery store, then you can ban them from entering your store, but you generally do need a judge to confirm that. Then again, the article actually specifies "...or similarly significantly affects him or her". So, it doesn't even need to be a right to upload to YouTube. Of course, it's up for debate if it "significantly affects" someone when they cannot upload YouTube-videos, but at the very least with the many people making their living off of YouTube, this should be a pretty clear case.
  - Natanael_L 9y ago
    Most of EU also has the equivalent of right to refuse service. You only can't chose to refuse service because of the customer belonging to a legally protected class. But they also still have to prove that was the cause, you can still just claim you simply don't like them.

by Sylos 9y ago

hellbanner 9y ago

What is the cost for doing this? eg. false copyright claims "My white noise video has copyright claims" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325

jonesetc 9y ago
It often comes with demonetization. It's especially a problem for people who make YouTube content for a living. Much, or possibly even most, of the income for these videos comes in a short burst when the video is first uploaded. This initial time can make up huge portions of a person's income.
- walterbell 9y ago
  Are there no businesses which promote "back catalogs" for YouTube content?

Natanael_L 9y ago

Since Google is just a host I don't think a court would consider a right to post, Google gets to pick what they host, perhaps the court would however consider a charge on anticompetitive behavior.

Sylos 9y ago
I think, that's more of a US thing that people don't have a right to an offer. In Europe, it usually rather goes that it's a public offer, therefore anyone in principle has a right to take this offer, you can especially not exclude them because you dislike their skin color or sexual orientation etc., but they can forfeit this right under certain circumstances, for example if someone repeatedly steals from your grocery store, then you can ban them from entering your store, but you generally do need a judge to confirm that. Then again, the article actually specifies "...or similarly significantly affects him or her". So, it doesn't even need to be a right to upload to YouTube. Of course, it's up for debate if it "significantly affects" someone when they cannot upload YouTube-videos, but at the very least with the many people making their living off of YouTube, this should be a pretty clear case.
- Natanael_L 9y ago
  Most of EU also has the equivalent of right to refuse service. You only can't chose to refuse service because of the customer belonging to a legally protected class. But they also still have to prove that was the cause, you can still just claim you simply don't like them.