3 ms·

This is not a matter of support, although I understand why it is convenient for Google to consider the issue from this point of view. $$$ The problem is that w

This is not a matter of support, although I understand why it is convenient for Google to consider the issue from this point of view. $$$ The problem is that when a search engine has the overwhelming majority of the online search market, freedom of information has a strict dependence on the QoS of that engine. Since people (at least in Europe) have a legal right to freedom of information, if Google is not providing support in this regard, then it's responsible for not respecting rights of European citizens. edit: Freedom of information is part of the Swiss constitution too. > Every person has the right to receive information freely, to obtain it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it [16.3]

fastball 9y ago
That's insanity. So because Google is an information company and governments have granted a "right to information [x]" Google has to provide any information a consumer could possibly want, for free, regardless of the cost to them? [x] - which is an absurdity in itself - what information? how? when? where? This "right" is just another overreach by the EU et. al. wanting everything to be a "human right" even if it's nonsense. A right to whose information? If I have a unilateral right to information, does that mean I have a right to your medical records? Where do you draw the line? If it's just a right to my own information, which I think is reasonable, Google search results don't qualify.
- rusk 9y ago
  Yeah, the law looking out for the best interests of her citizens is insanity. > does that mean I have a right to your medical records No, because under data-protection legislation nobody has the right to data about you, but you. More European insanity. I think GP has incorrectly categorised this as an FOI issue, it's more to do with Antitrust, which is a well worn path in the USA as well.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tgragnato 9y ago
  Personally, I continue to believe in free market principles. That's why I believe a decrease in the investment in "traffic acquisition costs" may be in the best interest of Google itself. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What did we expect? It would certainly be an improvement and it would give more leverage in avoiding regulatory impositions that in the long term are certainly deleterious (for all). Perhaps I'm naïve, but I see two possibilities: the acceptance of the overreach in regulations/fines/.., or a self-limitation of the monopoly. But I'm certainly not in the position to answer the question.
tomcam 9y ago
Interesting. The freedom of information concept seems in direct opposition to the right to be forgotten countries like Germany require.
- rusk 9y ago
  Right to be forgotten is Europe-wide. It's not really a big deal that different sets of laws conflict with one another. It's fairly common in fact. For instance Freedom of Speech vs Defamation laws. Good legislation like good code, accounts for these corner cases. Where it doesn't you have the lawyers and the courts to work it out.

fastball 9y ago

That's insanity. So because Google is an information company and governments have granted a "right to information [x]" Google has to provide any information a consumer could possibly want, for free, regardless of the cost to them? [x] - which is an absurdity in itself - what information? how? when? where? This "right" is just another overreach by the EU et. al. wanting everything to be a "human right" even if it's nonsense. A right to whose information? If I have a unilateral right to information, does that mean I have a right to your medical records? Where do you draw the line? If it's just a right to my own information, which I think is reasonable, Google search results don't qualify.

rusk 9y ago
Yeah, the law looking out for the best interests of her citizens is insanity. > does that mean I have a right to your medical records No, because under data-protection legislation nobody has the right to data about you, but you. More European insanity. I think GP has incorrectly categorised this as an FOI issue, it's more to do with Antitrust, which is a well worn path in the USA as well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tgragnato 9y ago
Personally, I continue to believe in free market principles. That's why I believe a decrease in the investment in "traffic acquisition costs" may be in the best interest of Google itself. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What did we expect? It would certainly be an improvement and it would give more leverage in avoiding regulatory impositions that in the long term are certainly deleterious (for all). Perhaps I'm naïve, but I see two possibilities: the acceptance of the overreach in regulations/fines/.., or a self-limitation of the monopoly. But I'm certainly not in the position to answer the question.

tomcam 9y ago

Interesting. The freedom of information concept seems in direct opposition to the right to be forgotten countries like Germany require.

rusk 9y ago
Right to be forgotten is Europe-wide. It's not really a big deal that different sets of laws conflict with one another. It's fairly common in fact. For instance Freedom of Speech vs Defamation laws. Good legislation like good code, accounts for these corner cases. Where it doesn't you have the lawyers and the courts to work it out.