3 ms·

I agree with your opinion that it's ludicrous to extend RTBF beyond a country's borders but I feel that even RTBF within a country or collection of countries co

by smoyer 10y ago

I agree with your opinion that it's ludicrous to extend RTBF beyond a country's borders but I feel that even RTBF within a country or collection of countries could be detrimental. If you do something newsworthy enough to make it into a newspaper, I can go find out what you did (unless RTBF also requires printed papers to go redact your information from each copy). Isn't this collective knowledge part of what keeps society running? And doesn't this provide incentives to behave (to those who are thinking about misbehaving)?

Silhouette 10y ago
If you're thinking along those lines, you might consider that reputable newspapers (and TV news shows) do issue retractions when earlier reports have been incorrect or misleading. There is also some debate about how certain -- perhaps less reputable -- newspapers will print a big front page article that is wrong, and then issue a tiny retraction on page 17 a few weeks later. The concern is very similar to the arguments for RTBF online: disproportionate coverage can leave the wrong impression with readers. Also similar to RTBF, there is talk of stronger regulation, such as requiring retractions to be printed or announced as prominently as the original story.
- smoyer 10y ago
  I don't disagree with you ... if someone publishes incorrect information they should own up to it and issue a retraction. And it makes complete sense to make sure the original incorrect information is at least deprioritized.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Collective knowledge of important, relevant things. But that is a small, constantly changing set of theories and knowledge. Inability to stop focusing on irrelevant details (ie, too much information intake) or inability to move on from no-longer-accurate information (ie, too good a memory) are both heavily involved with mental illness and psychiatric disorders -- and I think are causing society level mental illness, now.
kartan 10y ago
> If you do something newsworthy enough to make it into a newspaper, I can go find out what you did The goal of the law is to be able to remove your drunk picture from 5 years ago from the engine results so a prospective employer will not discard you for it. Cyber-bulling is another scenario where maybe you want to protect the victim and remove attackers posts/tweets/... from the search engine. Or maybe I just said 10 years ago that I hate Java and have repented since then and I just want it to be forgotten so my right to privacy is respected. You have right to choose what you share on-line, but once it is in the wild one of the most powerful companies in the world - trying to do a good service - is going to keep it for ever. This is something new in a society that - not so long ago - allowed people to move city and start their lives from scratch. For what I understand removing your search results for a newspaper is an abuse of the law, even that it is going to happen as I guess that this case is not protected enough by RTBF. And for me that's the most important part. This new law should assure that newsworthy events are not forgotten. It should protect news, while also protects privacy of things that you - or others in your behalf - have shared in the past. It is tricky, but I believe in a complex world of grays and not just black and white situations.

by smoyer 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

If you're thinking along those lines, you might consider that reputable newspapers (and TV news shows) do issue retractions when earlier reports have been incorrect or misleading. There is also some debate about how certain -- perhaps less reputable -- newspapers will print a big front page article that is wrong, and then issue a tiny retraction on page 17 a few weeks later. The concern is very similar to the arguments for RTBF online: disproportionate coverage can leave the wrong impression with readers. Also similar to RTBF, there is talk of stronger regulation, such as requiring retractions to be printed or announced as prominently as the original story.

smoyer 10y ago
I don't disagree with you ... if someone publishes incorrect information they should own up to it and issue a retraction. And it makes complete sense to make sure the original incorrect information is at least deprioritized.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Collective knowledge of important, relevant things. But that is a small, constantly changing set of theories and knowledge. Inability to stop focusing on irrelevant details (ie, too much information intake) or inability to move on from no-longer-accurate information (ie, too good a memory) are both heavily involved with mental illness and psychiatric disorders -- and I think are causing society level mental illness, now.

kartan 10y ago

> If you do something newsworthy enough to make it into a newspaper, I can go find out what you did The goal of the law is to be able to remove your drunk picture from 5 years ago from the engine results so a prospective employer will not discard you for it. Cyber-bulling is another scenario where maybe you want to protect the victim and remove attackers posts/tweets/... from the search engine. Or maybe I just said 10 years ago that I hate Java and have repented since then and I just want it to be forgotten so my right to privacy is respected. You have right to choose what you share on-line, but once it is in the wild one of the most powerful companies in the world - trying to do a good service - is going to keep it for ever. This is something new in a society that - not so long ago - allowed people to move city and start their lives from scratch. For what I understand removing your search results for a newspaper is an abuse of the law, even that it is going to happen as I guess that this case is not protected enough by RTBF. And for me that's the most important part. This new law should assure that newsworthy events are not forgotten. It should protect news, while also protects privacy of things that you - or others in your behalf - have shared in the past. It is tricky, but I believe in a complex world of grays and not just black and white situations.