13 ms·

> 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 YouTub

by ntrz 5y ago

> 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 as we feel like it." I'm a little surprised they don't seem to have included anything like that. > If we reasonably believe that any Content is in breach of this Agreement or may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties, we may remove or take down that Content in our discretion. (from https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms)

beezischillin 5y ago
They probably do. Powerful enough governments can just choose to ignore or re-interpret things any way they like and act on them, though.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Powerful enough governments can just choose to ignore or re-interpret things any way they like and act on them, though. Seems like a common trend in many countries around the world. Tech companies tend to be american, so they're a popular punching bag/scapegoat when it comes to enforcement actions.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  The original meaning of "...the pen is mightier than the sword." The clause in the sentence before that part reads "Beneath the rule of men entirely great,..." It was referring to authoritarian government.
tylersmith 5y ago
> YouTube unsuccessfully argued the video violated its policies on Covid-19 “misinformation.” It sounds like YouTube's stance is that the video may cause harm to their users; one of their criteria for removal.
- cronix 5y ago
  > may cause harm Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."
  - rzzzt 5y ago
    As an example, some people consider GOTO statements to be harmful.
    - brink 5y ago
      Or more precisely; some people don't. /s
      - takeda 5y ago
        Actually that's a good analogy. If there weren't people that blindly accepting it as the truth and verified everything this wouldn't be bad, in fact would be good because it could drive attention to something that perhaps was ignored. Unfortunately large part of population has no idea how to do fact checking, and what's worse many take their news from the Facebook.
      - sharikone 5y ago
        I imagine YouTube removing C tutorials because they "encourage harmful behaviors"
  - tylersmith 5y ago
    Maybe that's why their challenge failed.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Well at least the government isn't mandating that all "harmful" content be taken off the web... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-harms-bill-firms-may-face-multibillion-pound-fines-for-content https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-ha... (For what it's worth, the proposed law now refers to "safety" rather than "harms").
devoutsalsa 5y ago
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.
- realityking 5y ago
  That argument would imply that the terms of service are worthless as the platform owner can do whatever they want. That’s not how contracts work, at least not in Germany.
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    Imagine being responsible for writing the individual ToS for ever nation on Earth. That sounds hard.
    - AdrianB1 5y ago
      Imagine doing business and getting revenue in every nation on the Earth. That sounds hard.
      - unishark 5y ago
        There are systems, such as international shipping and financial technology that simplify many of those difficulties for you, at least to the point of making revenue from a great many countries. Complying with the local laws (including paying taxes) is indeed where it gets hard.
    - josefx 5y ago
      They probably didn't bother at all. Not long ago Apple got fined because they implied that they would only provide one year warranty unless you paid for more, in the EU two years are the absolute minimum and telling your customers otherwise is not an option. As far as I could tell they just wrote the US version and translated that for every non English speaking country. Google might also be intentionally lazy, the Google Play licensing terms for example generally fail in front of a court when they are challenged, as they actively violate every law on anti competitive behavior you could think up. Whenever that happens Google just carves out a new licensing region for that courts jurisdiction and keeps the terms unchanged for the remaining world.
Phil_Latio 5y ago
> 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 communication themselves, the fundamental rights obligation of private parties can in fact be close to or even equal to a fundamental rights obligation of the state. So as long as YouTube, Twitter etc. are open to "the public", they could write "we reserve the right to remove any content for any or no reason at any time" in their TOS and it wouldn't be valid in Germany.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  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.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Don't judge too quickly. The ruling also made clear that it is judges who determine if content violates the law. It was not the case here. But it also means that platforms would have to comply with the judiciary restricting content and face fines if they don't. That wouldn't be too positive for the net and its development under certain circumstances. Double-edged sword...
    - kaba0 5y ago
      I don’t see how would it be a double-edged sword. It’s a meme, but we do in fact live in a society, with laws made mostly democratically by people (ideally) — which is the closest thing at this scale to a fair system. Why should a private company get to decide what it wants over the local laws? If it were to host child porn, should we be okay with that even though we collectively have voted to ban any form of pornography of minors?
  - eli 5y ago
Zenst 5y ago
I also do wonder, how grey the area of hate crime is in some countries and might of seen YouTube guilty of that possibly if they had left it up, certainly the comments section would of been a light to the moths.
Nasrudith 5y ago
That is also extremely hypocritical. Youtube is expected to have clearer TOS than the goddamned government?

by ntrz 5y ago

beezischillin 5y ago

They probably do. Powerful enough governments can just choose to ignore or re-interpret things any way they like and act on them, though.

gruez 5y ago
>Powerful enough governments can just choose to ignore or re-interpret things any way they like and act on them, though. Seems like a common trend in many countries around the world. Tech companies tend to be american, so they're a popular punching bag/scapegoat when it comes to enforcement actions.
slowmovintarget 5y ago
The original meaning of "...the pen is mightier than the sword." The clause in the sentence before that part reads "Beneath the rule of men entirely great,..." It was referring to authoritarian government.

tylersmith 5y ago

> YouTube unsuccessfully argued the video violated its policies on Covid-19 “misinformation.” It sounds like YouTube's stance is that the video may cause harm to their users; one of their criteria for removal.

cronix 5y ago
> may cause harm Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."
- rzzzt 5y ago
  As an example, some people consider GOTO statements to be harmful.
  - brink 5y ago
    Or more precisely; some people don't. /s
    - takeda 5y ago
      Actually that's a good analogy. If there weren't people that blindly accepting it as the truth and verified everything this wouldn't be bad, in fact would be good because it could drive attention to something that perhaps was ignored. Unfortunately large part of population has no idea how to do fact checking, and what's worse many take their news from the Facebook.
    - sharikone 5y ago
      I imagine YouTube removing C tutorials because they "encourage harmful behaviors"
- tylersmith 5y ago
  Maybe that's why their challenge failed.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Well at least the government isn't mandating that all "harmful" content be taken off the web... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-harms-bill-firms-may-face-multibillion-pound-fines-for-content https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-ha... (For what it's worth, the proposed law now refers to "safety" rather than "harms").

devoutsalsa 5y ago

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.

realityking 5y ago
That argument would imply that the terms of service are worthless as the platform owner can do whatever they want. That’s not how contracts work, at least not in Germany.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  Imagine being responsible for writing the individual ToS for ever nation on Earth. That sounds hard.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    Imagine doing business and getting revenue in every nation on the Earth. That sounds hard.
    - unishark 5y ago
      There are systems, such as international shipping and financial technology that simplify many of those difficulties for you, at least to the point of making revenue from a great many countries. Complying with the local laws (including paying taxes) is indeed where it gets hard.
  - josefx 5y ago
    They probably didn't bother at all. Not long ago Apple got fined because they implied that they would only provide one year warranty unless you paid for more, in the EU two years are the absolute minimum and telling your customers otherwise is not an option. As far as I could tell they just wrote the US version and translated that for every non English speaking country. Google might also be intentionally lazy, the Google Play licensing terms for example generally fail in front of a court when they are challenged, as they actively violate every law on anti competitive behavior you could think up. Whenever that happens Google just carves out a new licensing region for that courts jurisdiction and keeps the terms unchanged for the remaining world.

Phil_Latio 5y ago

> 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 communication themselves, the fundamental rights obligation of private parties can in fact be close to or even equal to a fundamental rights obligation of the state. So as long as YouTube, Twitter etc. are open to "the public", they could write "we reserve the right to remove any content for any or no reason at any time" in their TOS and it wouldn't be valid in Germany.

throwawayboise 5y ago
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.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Don't judge too quickly. The ruling also made clear that it is judges who determine if content violates the law. It was not the case here. But it also means that platforms would have to comply with the judiciary restricting content and face fines if they don't. That wouldn't be too positive for the net and its development under certain circumstances. Double-edged sword...
  - kaba0 5y ago
    I don’t see how would it be a double-edged sword. It’s a meme, but we do in fact live in a society, with laws made mostly democratically by people (ideally) — which is the closest thing at this scale to a fair system. Why should a private company get to decide what it wants over the local laws? If it were to host child porn, should we be okay with that even though we collectively have voted to ban any form of pornography of minors?
- eli 5y ago

Zenst 5y ago

I also do wonder, how grey the area of hate crime is in some countries and might of seen YouTube guilty of that possibly if they had left it up, certainly the comments section would of been a light to the moths.

Nasrudith 5y ago

That is also extremely hypocritical. Youtube is expected to have clearer TOS than the goddamned government?