3 ms·

Terrible ruling, do they even understand how the internet works? Oh well, when you're a global company, this is the BS you have to deal with.

IAmEveryone 9y ago
Are you saying it's impossible for Google to block some results globally? Because even if I may agree with the sentiment, I don't see how technology is the problem here–differences in law are. And if technology were the problem, that'd be the weakest possible argument. Where ever possible, technology need to evolve to serve what society (democratically) decides. You and I may not agree with this specific decision, but the process that created it is still far more legitimate than whatever Google or, in other cases, two guys and a compiler come up with.
- AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
  It's not impossible for Google to do, it's unjust for one nation to regulate the conduct of a company in every country.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Whose society? Whose democracy? The fundamental argument for democracy’s legitimacy is that citizens can (theoretically) influence policy. You don’t get to vote in foreign countries, but they get to censor your view of the internet? We wouldn’t even be talking about Russian election meddling if Russia had global internet censorship power.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  > "Where ever possible, technology need to evolve to serve what society (democratically) decides. You and I may not agree with this specific decision, but the process that created it is still far more legitimate than whatever Google or, in other cases, two guys and a compiler come up with." Freedom, to the greatest extent possible, is what matters. Invoking 'the legitimacy of process' really makes me cringe here as it's undoubtedly the exact sort of logic that led people to let religious institutions hold back the world for centuries. And that rule was not authoritarian in practice, even if it may have been in law. Poll the masses of the time and you'd see a democratic consensus for most of these incredibly backwards decisions that held society back. So to me the question is does a court in country A have a right to demand that a company in country B behave differently in country C? Is this a reasonable restriction of freedom? To me that seems to be a resounding no. Perhaps you can argue there are good reasons for this, but please do so in means other than invoking some appeal to 'legitimacy', whatever that's supposed to mean.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    > Freedom, to the greatest extent possible, is what matters What a useless platitude... Any government anywhere reduces someone's freedom in some way. Yet not no society has decided to forgo this mechanisms in the pursuit of pure "freedom". If you actually believe in anarchistic utopias...fine. You're wrong, but many people are. But otherwise simply screaming freedom, freedom just isn't an argument.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  It's not impossible, just stupid.
Tyr42 9y ago
I'd say that yes, they do. There's little point in removing the results from google.ca and not google.com.
- mcguire 9y ago
  There's little point in removing search results for DataLink from Google results worldwide when they could enjoin DataLink from selling any of the products in question. According to the article, Google is not even a party in the lawsuit.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

Are you saying it's impossible for Google to block some results globally? Because even if I may agree with the sentiment, I don't see how technology is the problem here–differences in law are. And if technology were the problem, that'd be the weakest possible argument. Where ever possible, technology need to evolve to serve what society (democratically) decides. You and I may not agree with this specific decision, but the process that created it is still far more legitimate than whatever Google or, in other cases, two guys and a compiler come up with.

AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
It's not impossible for Google to do, it's unjust for one nation to regulate the conduct of a company in every country.
closeparen 9y ago
Whose society? Whose democracy? The fundamental argument for democracy’s legitimacy is that citizens can (theoretically) influence policy. You don’t get to vote in foreign countries, but they get to censor your view of the internet? We wouldn’t even be talking about Russian election meddling if Russia had global internet censorship power.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
> "Where ever possible, technology need to evolve to serve what society (democratically) decides. You and I may not agree with this specific decision, but the process that created it is still far more legitimate than whatever Google or, in other cases, two guys and a compiler come up with." Freedom, to the greatest extent possible, is what matters. Invoking 'the legitimacy of process' really makes me cringe here as it's undoubtedly the exact sort of logic that led people to let religious institutions hold back the world for centuries. And that rule was not authoritarian in practice, even if it may have been in law. Poll the masses of the time and you'd see a democratic consensus for most of these incredibly backwards decisions that held society back. So to me the question is does a court in country A have a right to demand that a company in country B behave differently in country C? Is this a reasonable restriction of freedom? To me that seems to be a resounding no. Perhaps you can argue there are good reasons for this, but please do so in means other than invoking some appeal to 'legitimacy', whatever that's supposed to mean.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  > Freedom, to the greatest extent possible, is what matters What a useless platitude... Any government anywhere reduces someone's freedom in some way. Yet not no society has decided to forgo this mechanisms in the pursuit of pure "freedom". If you actually believe in anarchistic utopias...fine. You're wrong, but many people are. But otherwise simply screaming freedom, freedom just isn't an argument.
Mononokay 9y ago
It's not impossible, just stupid.

Tyr42 9y ago

I'd say that yes, they do. There's little point in removing the results from google.ca and not google.com.

mcguire 9y ago
There's little point in removing search results for DataLink from Google results worldwide when they could enjoin DataLink from selling any of the products in question. According to the article, Google is not even a party in the lawsuit.