5 ms·
Are you really comparing GDPR to Chinese speech laws?
by RussianCow 9y ago
Are you really comparing GDPR to Chinese speech laws?
- sakabaro 9y agoYes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> both are infringing 1st amendment The First Amendment protects you from the government. Facebook censoring you is not prohibited by the First Amendment. More broadly, I don’t see how GDPR interferes with one’s right to lawful political speech.
- methodover 9y agoHe means that both China and the EU (with the GDPR) infringe on freedom of speech.
- isostatic 9y agoHow does the GDPR interfere with one’s right to lawful political speech?
- sakabaro 9y agoFirst amendment is protecting all speeches except direct threats of violence. Right to be forgoten is by essence incompatible with the first.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoIt says nothing in the text of the first amendment that direct threats of violence are not covered. If that restriction is compatible with the first amendment I don't see why a future right to be forgotten can't be.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoI'm curious. Can you give an example of where this would infringe on the 1st amendment?
- sakabaro 9y agoBlockchains storing social data is good example. It's infringing by nature GDPR. A decentralised facebook-like social network on the blockchain is not possible anymore. Each node can be sue. It had happened with TOR exit nodes.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoIANAL, but crypto-shredding seems to be a viable way to meet GDPR deletion requirements, making it possible to implement compliant blockchains. Of course you'd have to make the nodes comply, but that has nothing to do with blockchains. But I still don't see the connection with the first amendment.
- sakabaro 9y agoThe first protects the nodes to store whatever social data they want. GDPR with particulary the right to be forgotten is a direct attack to this.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoYes, protects, it doesn't require them to. Facebook and its likes volunteering to destroy personal data on request really doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment at all. Edit: come to think of it I'm not even sure it protects them, but again, it certainly doesn't require them to store or transmit anything.
- kevinmchugh 9y agoin what sense do european and chinese laws impinge on the (USAmerican) 1st amendment?
- sakabaro 9y agoIf you want to run a social media platform, GDPR is infringing your freemdom of speech. You can argue that it’s worth it, for the illusion of more privacy. I just don’t think it is.
- RussianCow 9y agoYou still haven't stated how exactly it's infringing on our right to freedom of speech.
- sakabaro 9y agoIf on your social network someone wants his posts to be removed, you have to comply under GDPR, or else. HN for example doesn’t allow to remove your comments after some time.
- teamhappy 9y agoAnd how is me deleting my content your service violating your right to free speech exactly?
- sakabaro 9y agoIf it's a part of conversation - like most of social media posts -, I would assume it's fair use to keep it. Like if I interview you, and I publish the video, you can't retract what you said. Why social medias should be different?
- ggregoire 9y agoSadly I've seen this comparison so many times this last week on HN. Seems like common sense leaves some people when we talk about their country.
- sakabaro 9y agoYou are making the wrong assumptions. I am a EU citizen, but live in the US. I will vote in an heartbeat for a 1st amendment like in an Europe law. You just don’t see how Europe speech is reatricted, and how laws like GDPR contributes to it.
- pluma 9y agoI'm an EU citizen and I disagree, so I guess that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- sakabaro 9y agoYou won't vote to protect free speech?
- cocacola1 9y agofree speech* *Terms and conditions may apply.
- pluma 9y agoYou're moving the goalposts. Your statement suggested you want a US-style "1st amendment" in Europe. I don't. That has nothing to do with "free speech" as a concept. Under the US interpretation of free speech political donations are protected as "speech" and politicians can go on TV and say they want someone to be murdered and not face any consequences. I'm German so you can imagine why I fundamentally disagree with that notion, even if our laws are sometimes a bit too strict (though that often has more to do with post-WW2 denazification than free speech in particular -- e.g. not being allowed to put nazi symbology in video games, not even as enemies). UK libel laws and their advertising code are another example of European laws being a bit too strict. But even that is something I'd prefer over the "law of the strongest" in the US. EDIT: Free speech is obviously a great idea and an important right, but the problem with freedoms and rights is that they can't be absolutes when you live in a society with other people you want to share those rights and freedoms ("your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"). Additionally some of those freedoms and rights are mutually exclusive so you need to define an order of precedence. Even free speech absolutists generally draw the line somewhere (e.g. generally violence isn't considered speech even if it is a form of expression and few people would defend the right to shout "fire" in a crowded building and not facing the consequences of the resulting mayhem). In other words "being willing to defend free speech" is a meaningless platitude unless you first define what you consider the acceptable limits of that freedom.