3 ms·
Except it's not. The data is gone from the google index but you can still find it.
by dkarapetyan 10y ago
Except it's not. The data is gone from the google index but you can still find it.
- lisper 10y agoBut the data in Google's index is still information, and forcibly suppressing it is still censorship.
- edblarney 10y ago" and forcibly suppressing it is still censorship." No, not by any reasonable definition of the term. Whether it's 'censorship' or not, absolutely depends on what kind of information is in question.
- biocomputation 10y agoYes, forcible suppression by a state actor is definitely censorship, but not all censorship is bad. I am generally in two minds about this because there are convincing arguments for both sides. In the US, some people have a terrible time getting a job because of a criminal conviction. Yes, they did something wrong, maybe even terrible, but does society benefit from keeping these people from obtaining gainful employment? If society does benefit, for how many years should the individual wear the scarlet letter? At present a criminal conviction in the US is a life sentence for a lot of people. What if the government passed a law that expunged their criminal records after 7 years, but did so for the greater good of society? The French people think that the scarlet letter is bad for their society.
- lisper 10y ago> not all censorship is bad I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that France should not be allowed to censor beyond their own borders.
- andrewflnr 10y agoHow long do you think it will take for RTBF advocates to figure this out and demand it be taken down at the source, too? Probably about as long as it takes for people to start working around search engines. At least then no one will be able to claim it's not censorship.