9 ms·

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 pr

by pionar 5y ago

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.

username90 5y ago
> If the German government wants to provide a free-speech "safe zone", they should provide it themselves. But that is what they are doing here, no? They just use Youtube as the way to provide it. Governments doesn't have to run businesses themselves, private actors are much better at running the day to day stuff usually. Similarly if you own a huge amount of land and build a city there and let lots of people move in, don't get surprised when the government seizes your square and roads and make them public, or at least force you to let people move there as if they were public roads.
- travismark 5y ago
  but the government isn't paying YouTube to host videos. eminent domain and related takings require compensation
  - eqvinox 5y ago
    This isn't eminent domain, the government didn't decide to build a video service that they need to evict Youtube for. Apparently Youtube decided to remove a video without proper support in their terms of service, so they're being judged to be in violation of their contract with the user. Whether or not Youtube should have a clause in their terms allowing them to remove arbitrary content is a different question, and yet another is whether they should be allowed to have such a clause.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Perhaps in your jurisdiction, but in this hypothetical example, I guess not.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    Historically corporations were given a license to operate by the state, and limited liability conditional on their serving a public good. Some people currently seem to have the attitude that a corporation can be protected by the state but not responsible for its actions that negatively impact the common good. This was not the original intention. > But wether public or private, corporations were originally only granted special legal privileges by government, conditional on them serving some PUBLIC good. With special rights came special restrictions, and their operations were periodically reviewed for compliance with their stated purpose. However, over time the system of incorporation has been altered by corporations themselves, such that the benefits of state-grants have been kept, while the responsibilities discarded. [0] [0] https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-companies-b7fd4c684d15 https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-com...
  - evilsetg 5y ago
    YouTube is free to pack up shop and stop servicing Germany if they do not like it's Terms and Conditions.
josefx 5y ago
Think about it this way, you build something that looks like a pub, provides the services of a pub and say you are open for business. Would it be really that surprising that the state enforces laws that apply to pubs on your business or would you tell the health inspector to fuck off and open his own pub if he has problems with it?
- 8ytecoder 5y ago
  Yeah, but it’s still my property and you can’t make me serve a beer I don’t like.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - josefx 5y ago
    But you will be required to serve non alcoholic drinks.
    - em-bee 5y ago
      that are cheaper than the cheapest alcoholic one
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    If your pub, for example, refuses to serve people of color, then yes, the government will come in and shut it down.
- eli 5y ago
  Seems more like the government ordering you to serve a disorderly patron you previously ejected
  - fnmall 5y ago
    I don't see any similarities here: A really disorderly patron is hard to avoid in a restaurant but easy to avoid on YouTube. Then, on YouTube (or woke mailing lists) there are mostly two sides, only one of which gets censored: The one that opposes the dominant clique. YouTube is full of filth that is kept up because it is non-political and makes money for Google. If Google were really woke, it would take down all videos that are demeaning to women (according to their ideology). They don't, because these videos are a cash cow.
joshsyn 5y ago
I am surprised you are downvoted. Engineers are the worst kind of people to make rules, as they see things as simply black and white when things are much more nuanced. Best thing to do is "mind your own business". Unfortunately they feel its their business lol
lm28469 5y ago
> 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
- peakaboo 5y ago
  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.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    I'm talking about national sovereignty of democratically elected governments. They might have very different views than Americans and Google about what should or shouldn't exist. As if America and its private companies have the monopoly of what's "right" and what it means to "protect the people" of the world, this is ridiculous
  - n4r9 5y ago
    Do you have a source for this please?
- unishark 5y ago
  So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To restrict them is to restrict the choices of your own people to choose products they prefer. So what you're really arguing for is the majority in a country restricting the freedom of a minority in that same country.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    > So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? How did you extrapolate that ? No I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform. You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit. America isn't a role model, neither in politics nor culture, the world doesn't need to conform to what America think is right. Also, YouTube doesn't exist to serve the people, certainly not, it exists to make money and uses tax evasion to pay as little as possible in most EU countries, if they wanted to serve the people they could start there

by pionar 5y ago

username90 5y ago

> If the German government wants to provide a free-speech "safe zone", they should provide it themselves. But that is what they are doing here, no? They just use Youtube as the way to provide it. Governments doesn't have to run businesses themselves, private actors are much better at running the day to day stuff usually. Similarly if you own a huge amount of land and build a city there and let lots of people move in, don't get surprised when the government seizes your square and roads and make them public, or at least force you to let people move there as if they were public roads.

travismark 5y ago
but the government isn't paying YouTube to host videos. eminent domain and related takings require compensation
- eqvinox 5y ago
  This isn't eminent domain, the government didn't decide to build a video service that they need to evict Youtube for. Apparently Youtube decided to remove a video without proper support in their terms of service, so they're being judged to be in violation of their contract with the user. Whether or not Youtube should have a clause in their terms allowing them to remove arbitrary content is a different question, and yet another is whether they should be allowed to have such a clause.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Perhaps in your jurisdiction, but in this hypothetical example, I guess not.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Historically corporations were given a license to operate by the state, and limited liability conditional on their serving a public good. Some people currently seem to have the attitude that a corporation can be protected by the state but not responsible for its actions that negatively impact the common good. This was not the original intention. > But wether public or private, corporations were originally only granted special legal privileges by government, conditional on them serving some PUBLIC good. With special rights came special restrictions, and their operations were periodically reviewed for compliance with their stated purpose. However, over time the system of incorporation has been altered by corporations themselves, such that the benefits of state-grants have been kept, while the responsibilities discarded. [0] [0] https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-companies-b7fd4c684d15 https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-com...
- evilsetg 5y ago
  YouTube is free to pack up shop and stop servicing Germany if they do not like it's Terms and Conditions.

josefx 5y ago

Think about it this way, you build something that looks like a pub, provides the services of a pub and say you are open for business. Would it be really that surprising that the state enforces laws that apply to pubs on your business or would you tell the health inspector to fuck off and open his own pub if he has problems with it?

8ytecoder 5y ago
Yeah, but it’s still my property and you can’t make me serve a beer I don’t like.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- josefx 5y ago
  But you will be required to serve non alcoholic drinks.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    that are cheaper than the cheapest alcoholic one
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  If your pub, for example, refuses to serve people of color, then yes, the government will come in and shut it down.
eli 5y ago
Seems more like the government ordering you to serve a disorderly patron you previously ejected
- fnmall 5y ago
  I don't see any similarities here: A really disorderly patron is hard to avoid in a restaurant but easy to avoid on YouTube. Then, on YouTube (or woke mailing lists) there are mostly two sides, only one of which gets censored: The one that opposes the dominant clique. YouTube is full of filth that is kept up because it is non-political and makes money for Google. If Google were really woke, it would take down all videos that are demeaning to women (according to their ideology). They don't, because these videos are a cash cow.

joshsyn 5y ago

I am surprised you are downvoted. Engineers are the worst kind of people to make rules, as they see things as simply black and white when things are much more nuanced. Best thing to do is "mind your own business". Unfortunately they feel its their business lol

lm28469 5y ago

> 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

peakaboo 5y ago
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.
- lm28469 5y ago
  I'm talking about national sovereignty of democratically elected governments. They might have very different views than Americans and Google about what should or shouldn't exist. As if America and its private companies have the monopoly of what's "right" and what it means to "protect the people" of the world, this is ridiculous
- n4r9 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this please?
unishark 5y ago
So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To restrict them is to restrict the choices of your own people to choose products they prefer. So what you're really arguing for is the majority in a country restricting the freedom of a minority in that same country.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? How did you extrapolate that ? No I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform. You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit. America isn't a role model, neither in politics nor culture, the world doesn't need to conform to what America think is right. Also, YouTube doesn't exist to serve the people, certainly not, it exists to make money and uses tax evasion to pay as little as possible in most EU countries, if they wanted to serve the people they could start there