11 ms·

Do you think Germany "nationalizing" YouTube is less extreme than this ruling?

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Forcing Google to host content against their will is pretty close. I guess in this case it's better than nationalizing though, Google has to pay for the hosting, and you get to tell Google they're not allowed to delete videos.
- the_lonely_road 5y ago
  I require guests in my house to take their shoes off. They don’t have to do it, they can just leave. But if they want to stay in my house they need to take their shoes off. No one is holding a gun to YouTube’s head and telling them they have to serve video content to Germans. They want to be in Germany serving video content, so it’s only fair and just that they should listen to the Germans and do what they say or leave.
  - eli 5y ago
    A country isn’t really like your house though, is it? Germany could probably tell Google not to host any videos from the opposition political party under penalty of fine or expulsion. Hopefully we agree that that would be bad?
    - hexane360 5y ago
      But Germany can't do that because it would be against Germany's constitution.
      - drdeca 5y ago
        s/can't/probably wouldn't/ It is entirely possible for countries to do things which are against their constitution.
      - eli 5y ago
        It's a hypothetical. A Constitution can be amended or ignored, can't it? My point is that a country is not your house. And citizens are not visitors. It's the wrong analogy and leads to bad conclusions.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      You know that Germany does actually outlaw promotion of certain political parties, right? Hopefully you agree German law is bad or you're disagreeing with yourself.
    - licebmi__at__ 5y ago
      Germany could also force all food establishments to add a little bit of poison to the dishes. Would that be an argument against government regulating food preparation standards? We can agree that bad things are bad, but that doesn’t really gives us much insight.
- meltedcapacitor 5y ago
  They did not delete it because it was unprofitable to host. If they want to diminish the impact legally and profitably, they can just drown it in in more intrusive ads.
- sib 5y ago
  Reminder that Germany doesn't have the same definition of "freedom of speech" that the US does (not making the case that one is better than the other, but simply that they are different.)
miiir0 5y ago
Law overwrites contracts

Forcing Google to host content against their will is pretty close. I guess in this case it's better than nationalizing though, Google has to pay for the hosting, and you get to tell Google they're not allowed to delete videos.

the_lonely_road 5y ago
I require guests in my house to take their shoes off. They don’t have to do it, they can just leave. But if they want to stay in my house they need to take their shoes off. No one is holding a gun to YouTube’s head and telling them they have to serve video content to Germans. They want to be in Germany serving video content, so it’s only fair and just that they should listen to the Germans and do what they say or leave.
- eli 5y ago
  A country isn’t really like your house though, is it? Germany could probably tell Google not to host any videos from the opposition political party under penalty of fine or expulsion. Hopefully we agree that that would be bad?
  - hexane360 5y ago
    But Germany can't do that because it would be against Germany's constitution.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      s/can't/probably wouldn't/ It is entirely possible for countries to do things which are against their constitution.
    - eli 5y ago
      It's a hypothetical. A Constitution can be amended or ignored, can't it? My point is that a country is not your house. And citizens are not visitors. It's the wrong analogy and leads to bad conclusions.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    You know that Germany does actually outlaw promotion of certain political parties, right? Hopefully you agree German law is bad or you're disagreeing with yourself.
  - licebmi__at__ 5y ago
    Germany could also force all food establishments to add a little bit of poison to the dishes. Would that be an argument against government regulating food preparation standards? We can agree that bad things are bad, but that doesn’t really gives us much insight.
meltedcapacitor 5y ago
They did not delete it because it was unprofitable to host. If they want to diminish the impact legally and profitably, they can just drown it in in more intrusive ads.
sib 5y ago
Reminder that Germany doesn't have the same definition of "freedom of speech" that the US does (not making the case that one is better than the other, but simply that they are different.)

miiir0 5y ago

Law overwrites contracts