5 ms·

Why do courts have the power to tell me what I will publish on my website?

by erfgh 5y ago

Tepix 5y ago
It says so in the ruling: § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB The published terms of service were invalid because they unreasonably disadvantage the users of the network contrary to the requirements of good faith.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
Because you live in a society
- vixen99 5y ago
  So do the citizens of Byelorussia and North Korea. They also have to obey the rules. So 'because you live in a society' doesn't take us any further does it?
  - lm28469 5y ago
    I know you're arguing in bad faith but Germany is closer to a democracy than """Byelorussia""" and NK.
  - Tepix 5y ago
    It makes clear that you have to follow the rules in whatever country you live in.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    The question was about why courts had power over FB and "you live in a society" explains that. Your (bad faith) attack completely fails at questioning that reasoning, because the reason is true regardless of your feeling about the particular courts that exist in a given society.
- playguardin 5y ago
  And the society is garbage.
- hnbad 5y ago
  I think there is a fruitful discussion to be had about whether the "social contract" is legitimate or simply a post-hoc justification for the status quo, but that seems like a grandiose topic for a discussion about the specifics of national laws. The more accurate answer is: because the state holds the monopoly of violence and will use it against you if you don't follow its laws. Resistance will result in punishment. The reason courts have the power to make you do as they say is that if you don't, eventually armed people will come to your home and incarcerate you. Short of an armed insurrection there's really no way to avoid this unless you're Jeff Bezos (and even then you won't get away with everything but the consequences will likely be less unpleasant).
kekebo 5y ago
From what I understand a key element is Facebooks interpretation and handling of hate speech, with the court arguing that regulation / protection of freedom of speech should be subject to state legislation, not private companies' TOS
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Where is that Youtube tutorial for how to make an IED
busymom0 5y ago
> publish "publish" being the key word. If you are publishing on your own website, then you are held responsible for your own content. But big tech claims to be platforms while acting as publishers. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc hide behind the disguise of "algorithms" to push content they like and throttle content they don't like. The "trending" or "for you" or "promoted" etc are all decisions made by the platforms. It's well known that the "trending" videos on YouTube or posts on Twitter are not actually organic. When they use "algorithms", they are equivalent to publishing. Similar to how newspapers can't just publish everything. They make editorial decisions on what to publish and what not to. The "algorithms" are the editorial decisions. That makes them a publisher. Right now, even when big tech allows something libelous to spread on their platform, lets it trend, refuse to take it down and when they get sued, they claim they are immune because they are just a platform. That's not a "platform". They acted as publishers when their fake trending algorithms let it trend.
- joejerryronnie 5y ago
  Interesting take. I never bought into the argument that social media companies were publishers in general, but I do agree that their algorithms used to promote and suggest content can be seen as actively publishing selected information.
lm28469 5y ago
Hm we live in structured societies in which laws are used to restrict individual liberties to protect collective ones. It's not that hard to grasp
themaninthedark 5y ago
Why do courts have the power to tell me who I must serve in my restaurant?
dbsmith83 5y ago
Not sure why you are being down voted for posing a question which I think is relevant. I think it's because you worded it so generally instead of more specifically to the article at hand. I don't think some of the responses you got were very convincing either (in my opinion). I'll respond to a few: > Hm we live in structured societies in which laws are used to restrict individual liberties to protect collective ones. It's not that hard to grasp Sure, there may be restrictions on certain things you can put on a website generally (illegal content), but I think the GP's question is about this specific case. No laws were broken, and the website is not a government venue. It is a business, which also has rights/liberties regarding what they choose to allow. For instance, if I goto a a subreddit and start talking about something completely off topic and it gets removed and I'm banned, who cares? That should be allowed. > Because you live in a society This might be a relevant response if you take the GP's question in the most general way possible, but applying it to this specific case it is not really adequate. > Why do courts have the power to tell me who I must serve in my restaurant? I don't think this really applies to the situation here. It's more like if you went into a restaurant and started acting rude (but not doing anything technically illegal) and the restaurant decided to throw you out, which is totally fine and normal to do. Also, at a restaurant you are a paying customer doing 'business' (trading money for food), whereas at Facebook it's more like you are the product. You aren't really trying to make a business transaction with Facebook.

Why do courts have the power to tell me what I will publish on my website?

by erfgh 5y ago

Why do courts have the power to tell me what I will publish on my website?

It says so in the ruling: § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB The published terms of service were invalid because they unreasonably disadvantage the users of the network contrary to the requirements of good faith.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

Because you live in a society

vixen99 5y ago
So do the citizens of Byelorussia and North Korea. They also have to obey the rules. So 'because you live in a society' doesn't take us any further does it?
- lm28469 5y ago
  I know you're arguing in bad faith but Germany is closer to a democracy than """Byelorussia""" and NK.
- Tepix 5y ago
  It makes clear that you have to follow the rules in whatever country you live in.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  The question was about why courts had power over FB and "you live in a society" explains that. Your (bad faith) attack completely fails at questioning that reasoning, because the reason is true regardless of your feeling about the particular courts that exist in a given society.
playguardin 5y ago
And the society is garbage.
hnbad 5y ago
I think there is a fruitful discussion to be had about whether the "social contract" is legitimate or simply a post-hoc justification for the status quo, but that seems like a grandiose topic for a discussion about the specifics of national laws. The more accurate answer is: because the state holds the monopoly of violence and will use it against you if you don't follow its laws. Resistance will result in punishment. The reason courts have the power to make you do as they say is that if you don't, eventually armed people will come to your home and incarcerate you. Short of an armed insurrection there's really no way to avoid this unless you're Jeff Bezos (and even then you won't get away with everything but the consequences will likely be less unpleasant).

kekebo 5y ago

From what I understand a key element is Facebooks interpretation and handling of hate speech, with the court arguing that regulation / protection of freedom of speech should be subject to state legislation, not private companies' TOS

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Where is that Youtube tutorial for how to make an IED

busymom0 5y ago

> publish "publish" being the key word. If you are publishing on your own website, then you are held responsible for your own content. But big tech claims to be platforms while acting as publishers. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc hide behind the disguise of "algorithms" to push content they like and throttle content they don't like. The "trending" or "for you" or "promoted" etc are all decisions made by the platforms. It's well known that the "trending" videos on YouTube or posts on Twitter are not actually organic. When they use "algorithms", they are equivalent to publishing. Similar to how newspapers can't just publish everything. They make editorial decisions on what to publish and what not to. The "algorithms" are the editorial decisions. That makes them a publisher. Right now, even when big tech allows something libelous to spread on their platform, lets it trend, refuse to take it down and when they get sued, they claim they are immune because they are just a platform. That's not a "platform". They acted as publishers when their fake trending algorithms let it trend.

joejerryronnie 5y ago
Interesting take. I never bought into the argument that social media companies were publishers in general, but I do agree that their algorithms used to promote and suggest content can be seen as actively publishing selected information.

lm28469 5y ago

Hm we live in structured societies in which laws are used to restrict individual liberties to protect collective ones. It's not that hard to grasp

themaninthedark 5y ago

Why do courts have the power to tell me who I must serve in my restaurant?

dbsmith83 5y ago

Not sure why you are being down voted for posing a question which I think is relevant. I think it's because you worded it so generally instead of more specifically to the article at hand. I don't think some of the responses you got were very convincing either (in my opinion). I'll respond to a few: > Hm we live in structured societies in which laws are used to restrict individual liberties to protect collective ones. It's not that hard to grasp Sure, there may be restrictions on certain things you can put on a website generally (illegal content), but I think the GP's question is about this specific case. No laws were broken, and the website is not a government venue. It is a business, which also has rights/liberties regarding what they choose to allow. For instance, if I goto a a subreddit and start talking about something completely off topic and it gets removed and I'm banned, who cares? That should be allowed. > Because you live in a society This might be a relevant response if you take the GP's question in the most general way possible, but applying it to this specific case it is not really adequate. > Why do courts have the power to tell me who I must serve in my restaurant? I don't think this really applies to the situation here. It's more like if you went into a restaurant and started acting rude (but not doing anything technically illegal) and the restaurant decided to throw you out, which is totally fine and normal to do. Also, at a restaurant you are a paying customer doing 'business' (trading money for food), whereas at Facebook it's more like you are the product. You aren't really trying to make a business transaction with Facebook.