4 ms·

I'm glad everyone is so anti-censorship in this thread! Should tech companies also ignore censorship at the hands of European governments or Canada via "right

by wyager 9y ago

I'm glad everyone is so anti-censorship in this thread! Should tech companies also ignore censorship at the hands of European governments or Canada via "right to be forgotten" legislation? I seem to recall people on this site saying that it would be wrong for tech companies to resist the government in those cases. At least China isn't attempting to force censorship in other countries, unlike the Canadian government.

mtgx 9y ago
Google is fighting the Canadian court right now. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/google-sues-in-us-court-to-block-canadas-sweeping-de-indexing-order/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/google-sues-in-u...
- wyager 9y ago
  Good, but my point was that people on HN were generally in support of Canadian censorship.
am1988 9y ago
That "forced censorship" isn't about a right to be forgotten or any reasonable definition of freedom of expression. It's about a company violating IP rights. The US government puts the same pressure on Google. Worse actually, because the DCMA expects it to be done without a court order (which has lead to rampant abuse on sites like youtube).
- wyager 9y ago
  Of course, I should have figured that our censorship was for good reasons, but not Chinese censorship. After all, copyright interests are clearly worth censoring for, but whatever excuse the Chinese government used (State interests?) aren't.
  - am1988 9y ago
    I don't agree with a lot of the censorship for copyright eihter (nintendo and lets play videos is one such example). You seriously can't see the rather important moral difference between "take down this site selling copies of my stuff as their own" vs "take down this criticism of the government massacring citizens"?
    - wyager 9y ago
      The recent Canadian and European takedown cases covered here on HN weren't about "stuff I own", they were about "inconvenient information I want to remove from public view". Still covered under copyright law.

by wyager 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

Google is fighting the Canadian court right now. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/google-sues-in-us-court-to-block-canadas-sweeping-de-indexing-order/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/google-sues-in-u...

wyager 9y ago
Good, but my point was that people on HN were generally in support of Canadian censorship.

am1988 9y ago

That "forced censorship" isn't about a right to be forgotten or any reasonable definition of freedom of expression. It's about a company violating IP rights. The US government puts the same pressure on Google. Worse actually, because the DCMA expects it to be done without a court order (which has lead to rampant abuse on sites like youtube).

wyager 9y ago
Of course, I should have figured that our censorship was for good reasons, but not Chinese censorship. After all, copyright interests are clearly worth censoring for, but whatever excuse the Chinese government used (State interests?) aren't.
- am1988 9y ago
  I don't agree with a lot of the censorship for copyright eihter (nintendo and lets play videos is one such example). You seriously can't see the rather important moral difference between "take down this site selling copies of my stuff as their own" vs "take down this criticism of the government massacring citizens"?
  - wyager 9y ago
    The recent Canadian and European takedown cases covered here on HN weren't about "stuff I own", they were about "inconvenient information I want to remove from public view". Still covered under copyright law.