6 ms·

> If "YouTubers" are journalists, then everyone is a journalist. In a way, yes. That is what freedom of the press means, and it is a core principle of the West

> If "YouTubers" are journalists, then everyone is a journalist. In a way, yes. That is what freedom of the press means, and it is a core principle of the Western world. Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly. That is, and should remain, legal. No authority can decide who qualifies as a journalist. There are no official press credentials in law either. The passes that some news agencies issue are simply pieces of paper with no legal weight, because press freedom is a fundamental right for every citizen. The idea that someone cannot be a journalist simply because they are not part of a large agency is mistaken. It is just as mistaken to assume that independent journalists will automatically act irresponsibly. > Am I the public? Cause, I am super happy people can't just film and publish me walking in public. There is no expectation of privacy in public. Of course no one can come to you and hold their camera in your face. That's not allowed. But if you happen to be walking around and there's some news agency or journalist that has a camera on to something else (again in public) like a tourist attraction, then of course you will be on their film and they do not have to ask you before putting it on YouTube.

jijijijij 1y ago
> Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly. Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement. > Eine zentrale Anforderung an die Presse ist die Einhaltung der publizistischen oder journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht bei der Berichterstattung. Es handelt sich um einen allgemeinen medienrechtlichen Grundsatz, der für verkörperte Presseerzeugnisse in den Pressegesetzen der Länder gesetzlich verankert ist. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presserecht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presserecht > Persönlichkeitsrechte > Die Presse achtet das Privatleben des Menschen und seine informationelle Selbstbestimmung. Ist aber sein Verhalten von öffentlichem Interesse, so kann es in der Presse erörtert werden. Bei einer identifizierenden Berichterstattung muss das Informationsinteresse der Öffentlichkeit die schutzwürdigen Interessen von Betroffenen überwiegen; bloße Sensationsinteressen rechtfertigen keine identifizierende Berichterstattung. Soweit eine Anonymisierung geboten ist, muss sie wirksam sein. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressekodex https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressekodex > There is no expectation of privacy in public. The expectation of privacy and being in "public" are somewhat independent things, as explained earlier. The threshold isn't just "in your face", but if someone is identifiable or not.
- randomtoast 1y ago
  > Oh, boy... If "YouTubers" are journalists ... > Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement. Again, I am telling you that YouTubers have been ordered by the police to stop filming in public. The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy..."), namely that they would not adhere to journalistic due diligence. But assuming that someone might not behave lawfully is not a crime. I cannot simply call the police on someone and say, "I think this person is suspicious and will commit a crime by filming in pubic" and then expect the police to issue unlawful orders based on that assumption. That is not how the law works. It is actually the other way around: you must assume that an independent journalist (including YouTubers) follows journalistic due diligence. Only if he or she publishes a video without proper blurring or in violation of due diligence can you engage a lawyer to take action. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies.
  - jijijijij 1y ago
    Well, since you didn't provide any example of "famous YouTuber" incidents, it's hard to judge. For certain, if they were livestreaming it implies not adhering to journalistic due diligence. And depending on the situation, it might have been clear, there was nothing of public interest around. Maybe people have asked not to be filmed. Quite easy to construct something as something else entirely, especially, if the outrage is weighed in ad-money. In any case, misbehaving police doesn't mean much either to the argument. Isolated incidents don't reflect the situation of a country. The question is about legality, which can only be considered by the ultimate outcome when legally challenged. Did those YouTubers press charges? > Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies No, the police is allowed act on experience and context. Eg. "racial profiling" is legal in certain areas. > The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy...") The Oh boy was due to the US human rights report reference, implying people in Germany care no less. Doubtfully in good faith, otherwise such a wild thing to bring up/fall for in 2025. I mean, praising the US as a bastion of democratic virtue is frankly insane. "Two" party system, gerrymandering, banned books, religious/political indoctrination of children, limited bodily self-determination and -expression, secret courts, total surveillance, no rule of law, press banned, killing of journalists, blatant misinformation and erasure/rewriting unpleasant history, .... But yeah, great you can legally buy everything you need to shoot up a school and legally mock the victims afterwards. The hustle more sacred than voting. Honestly, their take on "press freedom" you praised, what does it amount to in your opinion? Because to me, sure enough, "truth" means nothing to freedom, if you neglect the bigger picture, which makes information actionable. Germany does far, far better with the bigger picture. It's straight dishonest to get hung up on some single incidences, which may, or may not have happened. And looking forward, the laws around freedom of press didn't think of YouTube, Twitch and TikTok, when written. Information traveled slower, lies could be exposed and corrected. In today's world, we need to figure out a way to deal with Russian troll farms, Heritage Foundation campaigns, billionaire hubris, and algorithms enslaving people's minds. Exposure isn't any longer the corrective factor, but outreach and attention is. A large chunk of the population is already caught in some kind of alternative reality, completely immune to facts and reason. I am off, good luck.

jijijijij 1y ago

> Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly. Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement. > Eine zentrale Anforderung an die Presse ist die Einhaltung der publizistischen oder journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht bei der Berichterstattung. Es handelt sich um einen allgemeinen medienrechtlichen Grundsatz, der für verkörperte Presseerzeugnisse in den Pressegesetzen der Länder gesetzlich verankert ist. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presserecht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presserecht > Persönlichkeitsrechte > Die Presse achtet das Privatleben des Menschen und seine informationelle Selbstbestimmung. Ist aber sein Verhalten von öffentlichem Interesse, so kann es in der Presse erörtert werden. Bei einer identifizierenden Berichterstattung muss das Informationsinteresse der Öffentlichkeit die schutzwürdigen Interessen von Betroffenen überwiegen; bloße Sensationsinteressen rechtfertigen keine identifizierende Berichterstattung. Soweit eine Anonymisierung geboten ist, muss sie wirksam sein. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressekodex https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressekodex > There is no expectation of privacy in public. The expectation of privacy and being in "public" are somewhat independent things, as explained earlier. The threshold isn't just "in your face", but if someone is identifiable or not.

randomtoast 1y ago
> Oh, boy... If "YouTubers" are journalists ... > Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement. Again, I am telling you that YouTubers have been ordered by the police to stop filming in public. The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy..."), namely that they would not adhere to journalistic due diligence. But assuming that someone might not behave lawfully is not a crime. I cannot simply call the police on someone and say, "I think this person is suspicious and will commit a crime by filming in pubic" and then expect the police to issue unlawful orders based on that assumption. That is not how the law works. It is actually the other way around: you must assume that an independent journalist (including YouTubers) follows journalistic due diligence. Only if he or she publishes a video without proper blurring or in violation of due diligence can you engage a lawyer to take action. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies.
- jijijijij 1y ago
  Well, since you didn't provide any example of "famous YouTuber" incidents, it's hard to judge. For certain, if they were livestreaming it implies not adhering to journalistic due diligence. And depending on the situation, it might have been clear, there was nothing of public interest around. Maybe people have asked not to be filmed. Quite easy to construct something as something else entirely, especially, if the outrage is weighed in ad-money. In any case, misbehaving police doesn't mean much either to the argument. Isolated incidents don't reflect the situation of a country. The question is about legality, which can only be considered by the ultimate outcome when legally challenged. Did those YouTubers press charges? > Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies No, the police is allowed act on experience and context. Eg. "racial profiling" is legal in certain areas. > The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy...") The Oh boy was due to the US human rights report reference, implying people in Germany care no less. Doubtfully in good faith, otherwise such a wild thing to bring up/fall for in 2025. I mean, praising the US as a bastion of democratic virtue is frankly insane. "Two" party system, gerrymandering, banned books, religious/political indoctrination of children, limited bodily self-determination and -expression, secret courts, total surveillance, no rule of law, press banned, killing of journalists, blatant misinformation and erasure/rewriting unpleasant history, .... But yeah, great you can legally buy everything you need to shoot up a school and legally mock the victims afterwards. The hustle more sacred than voting. Honestly, their take on "press freedom" you praised, what does it amount to in your opinion? Because to me, sure enough, "truth" means nothing to freedom, if you neglect the bigger picture, which makes information actionable. Germany does far, far better with the bigger picture. It's straight dishonest to get hung up on some single incidences, which may, or may not have happened. And looking forward, the laws around freedom of press didn't think of YouTube, Twitch and TikTok, when written. Information traveled slower, lies could be exposed and corrected. In today's world, we need to figure out a way to deal with Russian troll farms, Heritage Foundation campaigns, billionaire hubris, and algorithms enslaving people's minds. Exposure isn't any longer the corrective factor, but outreach and attention is. A large chunk of the population is already caught in some kind of alternative reality, completely immune to facts and reason. I am off, good luck.