3 ms·

So, everyone seems to be celebrating the blow stricken against this seemingly unscrupulous company. Fair enough. But doesn't anybody else think this has at le

by jMyles 9y ago

So, everyone seems to be celebrating the blow stricken against this seemingly unscrupulous company. Fair enough. But doesn't anybody else think this has at least some worrying optics of censorship? Are we going to end up with another great firewall around Europe? And are you sure that only companies which enjoy a consensus as evil will be clawing the outside? Won't the internet interpret this as damage and route around it?

matthewmacleod 9y ago
But doesn't anybody thinks this has at least some worrying optics of censorship? No. No more than I think being able to sell fake medicine is a censorship.
- jMyles 9y ago
  I just don't have a great deal of confidence in my own ability to tell the difference between an arbiter who is making good judgments about which medicines are real and someone who is censoring a competitor by adjudicating their medicine as "fake." In fact, I think I have better instincts about detecting fake medicine than I do about detecting the fake arbiter.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - thefifthsetpin 9y ago
    Since I like torturing metaphors, let's say that the GDPR was instead a law prohibiting the sale of fake medicine. What happened in this case is that the Unroll me pill manufacturer announced that they'd not be selling their pills in the EU anymore due to the GDPR. So, though your concerns remain valid in the general case, in this particular case there could be no shifty arbiter. Unroll me self-assessed and decided that their own pills are fake.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      In this case, you're probably right. ...but what if you were selling a medicine that you knew worked, that you really believed in, but that you knew was going to be labeled fake by an arbiter in the employ of your competitor (and I think it's not unfair to say that the FDA is, at times, exactly this)? Might you decide not to spend the money to attempt to achieve compliance? Don't you think that some well-meaning organizations, knowing that they have powerful, well-connected beasts who wish failure for them, might opt to just stay out of Europe (either initially or always) instead of facing the costs of assuring compliance?
stordoff 9y ago
Complying with the law that prevents certain business practices and using user data for your own ends isn't censorship, just as not being able to sell water labelled as vodka isn't censorship.
- jMyles 9y ago
  If the result is that no vodka is available, hasn't vodka been effectively censored just the same?
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    If by vodka you mean unwanted data collection, that sounds pretty great.
M2Ys4U 9y ago
>But doesn't anybody else think this has at least some worrying optics of censorship? No.

by jMyles 9y ago

matthewmacleod 9y ago

But doesn't anybody thinks this has at least some worrying optics of censorship? No. No more than I think being able to sell fake medicine is a censorship.

jMyles 9y ago
I just don't have a great deal of confidence in my own ability to tell the difference between an arbiter who is making good judgments about which medicines are real and someone who is censoring a competitor by adjudicating their medicine as "fake." In fact, I think I have better instincts about detecting fake medicine than I do about detecting the fake arbiter.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thefifthsetpin 9y ago
  Since I like torturing metaphors, let's say that the GDPR was instead a law prohibiting the sale of fake medicine. What happened in this case is that the Unroll me pill manufacturer announced that they'd not be selling their pills in the EU anymore due to the GDPR. So, though your concerns remain valid in the general case, in this particular case there could be no shifty arbiter. Unroll me self-assessed and decided that their own pills are fake.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    In this case, you're probably right. ...but what if you were selling a medicine that you knew worked, that you really believed in, but that you knew was going to be labeled fake by an arbiter in the employ of your competitor (and I think it's not unfair to say that the FDA is, at times, exactly this)? Might you decide not to spend the money to attempt to achieve compliance? Don't you think that some well-meaning organizations, knowing that they have powerful, well-connected beasts who wish failure for them, might opt to just stay out of Europe (either initially or always) instead of facing the costs of assuring compliance?

stordoff 9y ago

Complying with the law that prevents certain business practices and using user data for your own ends isn't censorship, just as not being able to sell water labelled as vodka isn't censorship.

jMyles 9y ago
If the result is that no vodka is available, hasn't vodka been effectively censored just the same?
- willstrafach 9y ago
  If by vodka you mean unwanted data collection, that sounds pretty great.

M2Ys4U 9y ago

>But doesn't anybody else think this has at least some worrying optics of censorship? No.