Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikece | Hacker News Reader

Do they really need to make that explicit in the terms of service? I thought it was obvious that I didn't have the right to make Google/YouTube pay for hosting and serving a video just because I created it.

Or could this be a prelude to a culling of videos starting in the first quarter of next year? I would say that now is the time for a wannabe competitor to YouTube to get ready to step into the breech but if I'm not mistaken, YouTube has never made money despite YouTube's attempts to sell advertising content. I could see a future where it's going to cost (not much, but more than zero) to host and serve videos on YouTube.

View on HN

I think this is just like those “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs you see at B&M businesses sometimes. Sure, it’s stating the obvious, but it gives the business owner something to point at when they want to boot someone.

But businesses don't have a right to refuse service to anyone. Especially if the reasons for refusal are not in vogue.

They do in fact have a right to refuse service to anybody. But that doesn't mean they have a right to refuse service for any reason. Some sorts of reasons are forbidden, for instance discriminating on the basis of race.

It depends on the country. In France for instance if a business exposes something for sale they have to sell it to any customer. They cannot withdraw the sell, nor refuse to sell.

So a business in France can't institute a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy? I have my doubts.

This is indeed the case.

Unfortunately the sources are in French (see for instance https://droit-finances.commentcamarche.com/faq/23970-refus-d...).

From that source:

> Le refus de vente à un particulier est prohibé par la législation. Cette interdiction est posée par l'article L121-11 du Code de la consommation. Elle s'applique aussi bien aux ventes de produits qu'aux prestations de services.

This loosely means that not accepting a sale to a individual is forbidden. The law covers goods and services (article L121-11 of a code for "consumption" (includes sales)).

There are "special cases" when a seller can refuse to sell and they were specified by courts. Some examples:

- no more items in stock (one cannot force a seller to get more stocks of a given product)

- enormous amounts of a given good

- customer who poses a danger to the seller (violence, insults)

- customer who is known to be unable to pay

- customer who would like to buy illegal goods in his context (e.g. alcohol for underage customers)

Generally speaking, there must be a very, very good reason to decline a sale. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not one of them (to take your example - because walking without shoes or shirt is allowed in France)

Well, the sense that I've gotten until recently is that they were way more open to dissenting views. YouTube was a place where anyone could host anything as long as it didn't violate any law (DMCA, etc.). It even meant hosting videos of whose ideas were just down right crazy. But recently IMHO they've gotten too political for their own good. And to your point yes, it was obvious they have editorial control over everything but unless it was breaking the law they were going to let all voices speak.

(EDIT: clarity)

How else should they have handled Alex Jones' Sandy Hook insanity? Like, that becomes innately "political" because Jones has positioned himself that way. But he was peddling insane conspiracy theories regarding Sandy Hook being a false flag, with all of the families who lost their kids being crisis actors, subsequently calling his audience to action.

That is a hard position to be in, because they were effectively platforming targeted harassment. In addition to that, videos stating that Omar married her brother are still upon YT, as are flat earth explanations. One is a "harmless" conspiracy theory that ends up as a gateway into absurd things like Pizzagate, while the other is libelously spreading lies about a member of congress.

Where's the line? Because it doesn't appear as if there's one we all agree on.

>Where's the line?

I think it would be fine to say "as long as it isn't illegal (harassment, CP, copyright violation, etc. are not legal, so it falls under the umbrella), then let it be".

If it is something that isn't entirely clear (e.g., CP is pretty clear-cut, but harassment might not be), let the courts decide and make a decision based on what the courts say.

It sounds painfully obvious and simple, but I have a feeling I am definitely missing something important here, because that sounds way too easy.

Where's the line of liability, though?

I could make a video and state that Sandy Hook was a false flag and these parents are crisis actors. I don't have followers and influence, so my video wouldn't get many views and likely wouldn't instigate a call to harassment or violence.

But someone like Jones with a following did do that, and those families have gone through extended hell because of it.

The same is true with trying to spread lies about Omar marrying her brother. This is still commonly repeated across all mediums. Is it not an issue because she's a public figure? She receives death threats due to these types of veiled racism.

Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"?

I feel like there's a lot to consider with their position. What do they gain by platforming hate speech and conspiracy theories? It affects their reputation (to some degree), but they still make some money off of the advertising.

For the record, I don't think Google should be policing content. But there are slippery ways to get around TOS. The "I'm just asking questions" defense muddies things, and people like Jones know that.

>Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"?

"Slander" is a legal term, and if someone feels like they were slandered through a youtube video, they are welcome to go through that legal channel, just like if they were slandered by someone on the street or through phone or elsewhere. That's the kind of matter that courts were designed for, so it would make sense to keep that issue there. We don't need bajillion private "courts" to dish out their own "totally not self-serving" flavors of justice, we should be using the one we pay taxes for and that has grounds in the federal judicial system.

This should increase the friction to the point where we don't have as many takedowns of videos that are not doing anything wrong, while still allowing for offenders like Alex Jones to get the justice they deserve and get their videos removed.

You do raise a good point because what Jones said about Sandy Hook caused a lot of folks to lose their mind. However he cannot be held at fault for that. Unless someone calls for direct violence against someone else they shouldn't be held at fault. When they cross that line (and in doing so they are breaking the law) then they should be held liable. For the record I think what he did with SH and other topics have been atrocious but I'm all for the market silencing him.

When it breaks established law, then that's the line.

he got sued, let the courts handle it

Right. But, as a public company, should their position be to leave the harassment up until the court finishes up with its process, promoting its continued spread?

Because what do they gain from leaving this stuff up? It hurts people. If their stated goal is to be a bastion of free speech, that's one thing. But they're not doing that. They're providing a service. Passively hosting and platforming harassment definitely doesn't fit in with their initial "don't be evil" ethos.

okay, but you're opening the door to youtube being the arbiters of truth; once it starts going down that road, political agents take a keen interest in controlling it. it's a question of values.

absolutely. I don't think there's an easy answer here, but it poses an interesting question regarding a company's willingness to balance the idea of a true and open forum vs once bound by some set of ethics.

> Do they really need to make that explicit in the terms of service? I thought it was obvious that I didn't have the right to make Google/YouTube pay for hosting and serving a video just because I created it.

You would think most people understand this. However there is a political movement in America to force social networks to host people's vulgar or derogatory opinions in the name of the "first amendment," which technically never applied to privately funded social networks in the first place.

Lots of people would never think of walking into a Target and posting illiterate political meme's on the wall. But that's almost exactly what you're doing by making Facebook and YouTube spread your hate.

First amendment apply to the government and anything that functions equivalent to the government. Its that second part that court has made decisions going both way, and the question got mentioned as recently as this year when Trump twitter account got declared to function equivalent as any other official government forum. In that specific case the twitter account of the US president was deemed such, but the whole of twitter was explicitly not judged on.

Beside that, a lot of people talk to media about first amendment they often then go to court raising anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are much more broader and can be applied to private funded companies. When it comes to international companies there is also free speech as defined by the EU and that one do not make a distinction between company and state in the same way as the first amendment. The distinction between free speech (US first amendment), free speech (EU human rights) and free speech (US anti-discrimination) are all fine legal technicallities, but limitation in one does not give private funded social networks free range to do whatever they want.

How do you figure?

You agreed that your posts would be moderated when you signed up. Should Facebook be eternally available to host people's timeline? Who pays for that? Why should I innovate the next big thing if someone in a different country is going to hold me legally responsible to support it forever?

And the ruling doesn't mean Twitter has to host Trump's Tweets forever or guarantee service. If he breaks their TOS they will ban him. They have a right too.

What the ruling means is that the government has a responsibility to archive his Twitter posts and that he himself cannot restrict access to it, as president.

> I would say that now is the time for a wannabe competitor to YouTube

Yes, but how does the new upstart try to get traction from under an avalanche of useful shills that will start to smear them as "NaziTube"?

Edit/Addendum: Do you honestly think a new upstart would enjoy an "understanding press" in their "growing-pains years" like our current incumbents did?

Looks like I hit a nerve! which is shame b/c there are some good comments from people who understand that the tech landscape today is a lot different from "way" back in 2005/6; which means making a new YouTube today isn't so much a technical problem as much a political one.

It may be technically easy but you still have to deal with network effect, bandwidth costs, and a multitude of the legal issues before we even get to political issues. There already exist alternatives to Youtube that solve various aspects of this. Peertube, BitChute, Mega, heck there's no reason one couldn't use the the tech behind popcorntime for setting up something useful and legal. You still run into network effect every time.

Yep, I agree it's Network Effects every time, which is why I was trying to make the point (badly I guess) that it's easy to kill any upstarts' chances of getting any kind of network effects when they're immediately called out as a cesspool (I used "NaziTube" as a descriptive buy ya'll know what I mean).

I remember in those early days how TechCrunch (under Arrington) did a great job easing concerns and guiding the narrative to be favorable for those startups, which I just don't see happening today... but then I guess he got stock options for some of that xD

Possibly the more interesting question is "How will they attract advertisers when their content is an avalanche of Nazi-sympathetic videos?"

It's hard to compete with YouTube if your revenue model is ads and your content is "The stuff that YouTube wouldn't touch." Most of the ad industry doesn't want to associate with that content; that's part of the reason YouTube doesn't want to touch it. So a competitor going the road of trying to host that content would probably need to find a revenue model that isn't ad-based, for starters. That's gonna be a challenge (subscription-based model for Nazi-sympathetic content? ;) ).

> It's hard to compete with YouTube if your revenue model is ads and your content is "The stuff that YouTube wouldn't touch."

Um, there is an established industry that manages this just fine.

You are correct; I completely discounted porn (which is also picking up the advertisers that YT sheds).

But porn sites generally aren't going to be hosting pro-Nazi garbage because their advertisers also don't want to be associated with it. Reduces to the same problem. It does, perhaps, point to a possibility; much as the porn sites gain on the fact that YT filters both the content and the advertising it allows on the network, one could imagine a hyper-niche site that is combining content YT kicks off with another (non-porn) category of advertisers YT kicks off.

Gun manufacturers come to mind.

Well, you could do it for porn.

But yeah, not much else.

Certainly no one's gonna pay for the usual suspects' videos.

To downvoters: This already happened with Twitter and Gab. Asking what would prevent it here is a very apt question.

It would if it had a legitimate new take on the video hosting problem and wasn't just "YouTube, but for free speech", which would immediately become "YouTube, but for Nazis".

Folding Ideas (on YouTube) had a solid video about VidMe, which is a case study in how NOT to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI

I do. Media love an underdog story, especially when the underdog is taking on the companies that are costing them revenue.

I suspect the "NaziTube" nicknames (did this happen somewhere? Or is it more of a hypothetical example) are because upstarts don't have the resources to ensure Nazi videos are blocked. Thus, they become a breeding ground for that pernicious type of scum that has been evicted from the larger, better resourced, systems.

Forget the nazi shit for a minute: I doubt a youtube competitor upstart could get away with the sort of flagrant widespread copyright violation that was once common on youtube. Youtube itself got away with that for a few years, but can that stunt be replicated? I doubt it.

Good point. OTOH, there wasn't as much amateur digital content back then -- pretty much anything I wanted to watch was owned by a larger company. Nowadays, hobbyists and retirees and all kinds of people own the rights to content that I would want to see.

The environment has changed a lot, and it might not be a prerequisite to copy YT's growth model.

Unfortunately, that becomes a reason not to support YouTube alternatives if one doesn't actually want to create a breeding ground for that content that cannot practically be moderated.

It's a vicious cycle.

Among quite a significant portion of the vocal participants in social media anyone right of Bernie is a nazi. They call orthodox jews (Prager, Shapiro), lefty academics (Haidt, Peterson, Weinstein), and liberal gays (Rubin) Nazis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com