4 ms·

HN/YCombinator does not honor this correctly from a EU law perspective. They don't allow you to delete your content. What they do offer is renaming your account

by zgluck 3y ago

HN/YCombinator does not honor this correctly from a EU law perspective. They don't allow you to delete your content. What they do offer is renaming your account. I'm salivating for this monster lawsuit once they they have enough EU exposure. It will probably be based in Germany. @switch007: They are investing in European companies. That's exposure. @walthamstow: Look up the "Right to erasure" aspect of the GDPR. (Why am I adding these things as edits? - I was rate-limited by HN/Ycombinator so I can't reply to your individual comments. When trying to post a reply I get the message "please slow down".)

switch007 3y ago
Does HN have an EU company? If not, why should EU law apply? I’m mostly pro EU but I’m against countries/unions enforcing their laws beyond their borders.
4RealFreedom 3y ago
I don't know EU regulations well enough but isn't the ability to change your email address and scrub your about section enough? That would break any traceable links to you.
walthamstow 3y ago
I live in a GDPR country and I don't really see the problem with HN's approach. They own the information you typed into their website, you own the privacy of your name. Why should they delete information you gave them, rather than just help you anonymise it?
- xg15 3y ago
  > They own the information you typed into their website Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. That would imply to me that the site operator does not own the user-generated content. Otherwise, you'd have a weird "have your cake and eat it too" situation where a site gets all the rights of ownership but none of the responsibilities. (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content violates intellectual property or contains PII.)
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH: > I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. This is wrong on multiple levels; it specifically does not require that it be ”dumb” (neutral) software, which would have made them a distributor not a publisher under the law without Section 230; it specifically is to allow site operators (and other users) to do things that shape which content is presented without being subject to liability as a publisher. But that's about liability, not ownership. > (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content contains intellectual property or PII.) If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind.
    - xg15 3y ago
      Thanks a lot for that clarification. That actually changed my understanding of section 230: I always thought that the "shaping" of content was some sort of loophole that the section might have more or less accidentally enabled - I wasn't aware that this was its main purpose. Considering that we increasingly understand how much power lies in that ability to "shape" distribution of UGC, and how much platforms actively abuse that power, the people wanting to reform/repeal the section just got a whole lot more sympathetic in my view. > If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind. (I edited the GP before I saw the reply) My point was more who is responsible for violations of other IP in UGC - i.e. the classic case of someone uploading a blockbuster movie to YouTube. Would the liability fall on YouTube or the individual user who uploaded the content. Or, in a similar vein, you post your address/phone number/real name/whatever to a platform, then later want to delete the post again, but the platform doesn't let you. Can you (legally) force the platform to delete the post or not? However, the fact that both scenarios resulted in years-long, (and still ongoing) debates and in the end, new laws had to be passed to handle them (DMCA and GDPR), shows to me that the whole area seems to be extremely messy and not completely well-defined. But yeah, the other question is also interesting: If I uploaded some personal project to YouTube (which would constitute IP I believe) and suddenly it goes viral, could Google steal the video and publish it as their own? Good to know here that they can't.

by zgluck 3y ago

switch007 3y ago

Does HN have an EU company? If not, why should EU law apply? I’m mostly pro EU but I’m against countries/unions enforcing their laws beyond their borders.

4RealFreedom 3y ago

I don't know EU regulations well enough but isn't the ability to change your email address and scrub your about section enough? That would break any traceable links to you.

walthamstow 3y ago

I live in a GDPR country and I don't really see the problem with HN's approach. They own the information you typed into their website, you own the privacy of your name. Why should they delete information you gave them, rather than just help you anonymise it?

xg15 3y ago
> They own the information you typed into their website Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. That would imply to me that the site operator does not own the user-generated content. Otherwise, you'd have a weird "have your cake and eat it too" situation where a site gets all the rights of ownership but none of the responsibilities. (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content violates intellectual property or contains PII.)
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH: > I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. This is wrong on multiple levels; it specifically does not require that it be ”dumb” (neutral) software, which would have made them a distributor not a publisher under the law without Section 230; it specifically is to allow site operators (and other users) to do things that shape which content is presented without being subject to liability as a publisher. But that's about liability, not ownership. > (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content contains intellectual property or PII.) If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind.
  - xg15 3y ago
    Thanks a lot for that clarification. That actually changed my understanding of section 230: I always thought that the "shaping" of content was some sort of loophole that the section might have more or less accidentally enabled - I wasn't aware that this was its main purpose. Considering that we increasingly understand how much power lies in that ability to "shape" distribution of UGC, and how much platforms actively abuse that power, the people wanting to reform/repeal the section just got a whole lot more sympathetic in my view. > If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind. (I edited the GP before I saw the reply) My point was more who is responsible for violations of other IP in UGC - i.e. the classic case of someone uploading a blockbuster movie to YouTube. Would the liability fall on YouTube or the individual user who uploaded the content. Or, in a similar vein, you post your address/phone number/real name/whatever to a platform, then later want to delete the post again, but the platform doesn't let you. Can you (legally) force the platform to delete the post or not? However, the fact that both scenarios resulted in years-long, (and still ongoing) debates and in the end, new laws had to be passed to handle them (DMCA and GDPR), shows to me that the whole area seems to be extremely messy and not completely well-defined. But yeah, the other question is also interesting: If I uploaded some personal project to YouTube (which would constitute IP I believe) and suddenly it goes viral, could Google steal the video and publish it as their own? Good to know here that they can't.