4 ms·

Using a popular search engine that abides by EU laws is not the only way to find out about things. Killing the messenger does nothing to the message.

happyscrappy 11y ago
You can tell this to Europeans until you are blue in the face but they will not listen. They think they can impose their censorship on the world.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Yeah, totes weird how Europeans expect companies operating inside Europe to obey European law.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    It does no good if you can just use google.com and that will never be censored but pretend is good enough for them.
    - x0x0 11y ago
      it's perfectly reasonable for eu companies to say any google service accessed from within eu borders shall be so regulated If google doesn't like it, they are free to stop doing business inside the eu.
      - MichaelGG 11y ago
        It's not very reasonable to attempt to enforce geo boundaries on the Internet. It's a silly, backwards, approach. It might be something governments are doing, but that's only to be expected of them, always looking to increase influence and control.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        If Europe is foolish enough to try then Google will dump them, just like China.
        ionised 11y ago
        That might be for the best.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > You can tell this to Europeans until you are blue in the face but they will not listen. They think they can impose their censorship on the world. > Yeah, totes weird how Europeans expect companies operating inside Europe to obey European law And two good example of people thinking that Europeans/Americans/etc are just one big homogenous organism.
- blueflow 11y ago
  The difference to the US is that the US was actually successful, its called DMCA.
spinlock 11y ago
Even Hitler was smart enough to burn books, not just the card catalogue.
vidarh 11y ago
The intent is not to make it impossible to find out about things, but to make it sufficiently more effort to find out about things that the harm to the individuals in question is sufficiently reduced. It is very explicitly a tradeoff where everyone involved understands that the information won't go away, and where the courts have very explicitly said they will not consider trying to make the information go away as that would fly in the face of freedom of speech. The ease of access to information has a very substantial bearing on how much having the information out there affects peoples lives.
- Kalium 11y ago
  The intent is to deny many someones access to public information for the convenience of one someone. This is censorship by degrees. You'll have to pardon me. I'll be over here, in the corner, throwing up.
- kodablah 11y ago
  Personally, I find this a dangerous way of thinking. A real "right to be forgotten" law would affect content providers/publishers. Instead this is more "right to de-index". Ease of access is very subjective and the arbiters appear to be the ones holding the gun shooting said messengers. Despite my other concerns with the legislation, the primary reason it works today is because of centralization. The same people fighting for internet privacy and against government censorship will end up making laws like this unenforceable in the future. I wonder what lengths the EU will then go to when the indexing of lawful content is not centralized.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, imagine I get suspected of a crime, turns out I actually wasn’t responsible. Obviously, you can’t remove the newspaper article, even if it is heavily editorialized. But removing the connection between my name and that article would be possible. If someone searches for the specific article, they’ll find it. If they search for my name, they won’t. A reasonable compromise (all data is still there and readable, but my name isn’t connected with it anymore).
notahacker 11y ago
Sure, but the aim of the legislation isn't to render it impossible for a sufficiently interested person to find out that you were arrested for allegedly stealing a garden gnome in 1987. It's to ensure that your 1987 arrest isn't the first (and quite possibly only) thing a person associates with your name. Imposing restrictions on messengers does a huge amount to the message; that's why states also often take steps to restrict political advertising even whilst allowing candidates to say what they want

happyscrappy 11y ago

You can tell this to Europeans until you are blue in the face but they will not listen. They think they can impose their censorship on the world.

x0x0 11y ago
Yeah, totes weird how Europeans expect companies operating inside Europe to obey European law.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  It does no good if you can just use google.com and that will never be censored but pretend is good enough for them.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    it's perfectly reasonable for eu companies to say any google service accessed from within eu borders shall be so regulated If google doesn't like it, they are free to stop doing business inside the eu.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      It's not very reasonable to attempt to enforce geo boundaries on the Internet. It's a silly, backwards, approach. It might be something governments are doing, but that's only to be expected of them, always looking to increase influence and control.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      If Europe is foolish enough to try then Google will dump them, just like China.
      - ionised 11y ago
        That might be for the best.
Oletros 11y ago
> You can tell this to Europeans until you are blue in the face but they will not listen. They think they can impose their censorship on the world. > Yeah, totes weird how Europeans expect companies operating inside Europe to obey European law And two good example of people thinking that Europeans/Americans/etc are just one big homogenous organism.
blueflow 11y ago
The difference to the US is that the US was actually successful, its called DMCA.

spinlock 11y ago

Even Hitler was smart enough to burn books, not just the card catalogue.

vidarh 11y ago

The intent is not to make it impossible to find out about things, but to make it sufficiently more effort to find out about things that the harm to the individuals in question is sufficiently reduced. It is very explicitly a tradeoff where everyone involved understands that the information won't go away, and where the courts have very explicitly said they will not consider trying to make the information go away as that would fly in the face of freedom of speech. The ease of access to information has a very substantial bearing on how much having the information out there affects peoples lives.

Kalium 11y ago
The intent is to deny many someones access to public information for the convenience of one someone. This is censorship by degrees. You'll have to pardon me. I'll be over here, in the corner, throwing up.
kodablah 11y ago
Personally, I find this a dangerous way of thinking. A real "right to be forgotten" law would affect content providers/publishers. Instead this is more "right to de-index". Ease of access is very subjective and the arbiters appear to be the ones holding the gun shooting said messengers. Despite my other concerns with the legislation, the primary reason it works today is because of centralization. The same people fighting for internet privacy and against government censorship will end up making laws like this unenforceable in the future. I wonder what lengths the EU will then go to when the indexing of lawful content is not centralized.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, imagine I get suspected of a crime, turns out I actually wasn’t responsible. Obviously, you can’t remove the newspaper article, even if it is heavily editorialized. But removing the connection between my name and that article would be possible. If someone searches for the specific article, they’ll find it. If they search for my name, they won’t. A reasonable compromise (all data is still there and readable, but my name isn’t connected with it anymore).

notahacker 11y ago

Sure, but the aim of the legislation isn't to render it impossible for a sufficiently interested person to find out that you were arrested for allegedly stealing a garden gnome in 1987. It's to ensure that your 1987 arrest isn't the first (and quite possibly only) thing a person associates with your name. Imposing restrictions on messengers does a huge amount to the message; that's why states also often take steps to restrict political advertising even whilst allowing candidates to say what they want