3 ms·

I'm not sure I like the notion of a private entity being forced to host content they don't want to host. If it only applied to effective monopolies like YouTub

I'm not sure I like the notion of a private entity being forced to host content they don't want to host. If it only applied to effective monopolies like YouTube, I would be more inclined to agree with it, but the article doesn't seem to know anything about that.

ipaddr 5y ago
They are not forced to do anything but live up to the contract they signed.
- ErikCorry 5y ago
  Google signed a contract? Do you have the text of this contract?
  - flutas 5y ago
    It's the TOS. When you agree to it, you are entering into a contract with that company. In exchange for agreeing to their terms, you get access to their services.
- boring_twenties 5y ago
  Do you have some more details about this? Because there's nothing informative in the article. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Google signed a contract obligating it to host any and all content uploaded by the user, regardless of what it is. But hey, I've been surprised before.
  - red_trumpet 5y ago
    IANAL, but if I understand this German article [1] correctly, then the changes in Youtube's ToS were not contractually effective, because the user was not asked to comply. The fine was then imposed because Youtube took > 3 weeks to comply with the court's order to make the video accessible. [1] https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG-Dresden-verhaengt-100-000-Euro-Ordnungsgeld-gegen-YouTube.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG...
xdennis 5y ago
There's nothing unusual about it. For example, in some places, if you want to open a store, you have to have X amount of parking spots available depending on the store size. It doesn't matter than you don't want to rent extra space to create a parking lot. You have to! There are millions of other ways this is done. It's not unusual to have to host some files.
RedComet 5y ago
Yeah man, I bet the author has no idea that google has THE monopoly in this area.

ipaddr 5y ago

They are not forced to do anything but live up to the contract they signed.

ErikCorry 5y ago
Google signed a contract? Do you have the text of this contract?
- flutas 5y ago
  It's the TOS. When you agree to it, you are entering into a contract with that company. In exchange for agreeing to their terms, you get access to their services.
boring_twenties 5y ago
Do you have some more details about this? Because there's nothing informative in the article. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Google signed a contract obligating it to host any and all content uploaded by the user, regardless of what it is. But hey, I've been surprised before.
- red_trumpet 5y ago
  IANAL, but if I understand this German article [1] correctly, then the changes in Youtube's ToS were not contractually effective, because the user was not asked to comply. The fine was then imposed because Youtube took > 3 weeks to comply with the court's order to make the video accessible. [1] https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG-Dresden-verhaengt-100-000-Euro-Ordnungsgeld-gegen-YouTube.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG...

xdennis 5y ago

There's nothing unusual about it. For example, in some places, if you want to open a store, you have to have X amount of parking spots available depending on the store size. It doesn't matter than you don't want to rent extra space to create a parking lot. You have to! There are millions of other ways this is done. It's not unusual to have to host some files.

RedComet 5y ago

Yeah man, I bet the author has no idea that google has THE monopoly in this area.