5 ms·

I presume that is on the premissis that every other state / regime will be able to leverage that deal between Google & China to black out whatever they think is

I presume that is on the premissis that every other state / regime will be able to leverage that deal between Google & China to black out whatever they think is not PC in their country.

xbmcuser 8y ago
Most of them already do this the slippery slope was started with Europe with it's right to be forgotten US with its Dmca. It's funny how many people have forgotten this if those things can be censored by Google because of these countries laws why is results cencsoring for China under Chinese laws is any different.
- peteretep 8y ago
  Because Chinese laws are intended to stifle debate and oppress human rights, where the EU laws protect privacy, and the US ones protect intellectual property?
  - bushin 8y ago
    "It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter"
faag39 8y ago
I live in the EU where there's no freedom of speech and Google and the rest of tech companies are already being told about what they have to censor. I don't see how this is anything new. It's only in the news because it's China.
- wildebaard 8y ago
  What makes you say there is no freedom of speech in the EU? I also live there but I do not experience it like that.
  - yAnonymous 8y ago
    German here. Our government has pressured Facebook to allow private corporations (that of course are close to the government) to delete Facebook content -posts and pages with millions of followers- for political reasons as they see fit. The legal process was completely removed. They use this to help their election campaigns by branding government critical content as extremist and having it removed without due process. You'd think that when they remove content like that, they'd report the offenders to legal authorities -because after all, they are only allowed to remove content that is clearly illegal- but in most cases they don't. They just want the content gone and move on, which makes it very clear that this is just a censorship tool and their generous interpretation of illegal hate speech wouldn't hold up in any court.
    - wildebaard 8y ago
      Well, if the definition of free speech is 'it should be allowed on Facebook' then that's a horrible definition :) It does point toward a bigger issue, where Facebook is used and trusted by so many users that they do not access alternative sources of information.
      - yAnonymous 8y ago
        No. The companies involved (Arvato/Bertelsmann) get to make their own rules. Facebook doesn't even have a say in this, although they're paying for it as required by the law. They were threatened with fines in the millions (up to 50 mil) if they didn't comply. The situation is absurd. Facebook is legally required to pay for censorship by companies with close ties to the government.
        wildebaard 8y ago
        If I understand you correctly, this censorship only applies to Facebook. If that's correct, then I still do not agree with the statement 'there is no free speech' unless Facebook is your/the sole source of information. However, I do agree that it's problematic.
        8y ago

I presume that is on the premissis that every other state / regime will be able to leverage that deal between Google & China to black out whatever they think is not PC in their country.

xbmcuser 8y ago

Most of them already do this the slippery slope was started with Europe with it's right to be forgotten US with its Dmca. It's funny how many people have forgotten this if those things can be censored by Google because of these countries laws why is results cencsoring for China under Chinese laws is any different.

peteretep 8y ago
Because Chinese laws are intended to stifle debate and oppress human rights, where the EU laws protect privacy, and the US ones protect intellectual property?
- bushin 8y ago
  "It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter"

faag39 8y ago

I live in the EU where there's no freedom of speech and Google and the rest of tech companies are already being told about what they have to censor. I don't see how this is anything new. It's only in the news because it's China.

wildebaard 8y ago
What makes you say there is no freedom of speech in the EU? I also live there but I do not experience it like that.
- yAnonymous 8y ago
  German here. Our government has pressured Facebook to allow private corporations (that of course are close to the government) to delete Facebook content -posts and pages with millions of followers- for political reasons as they see fit. The legal process was completely removed. They use this to help their election campaigns by branding government critical content as extremist and having it removed without due process. You'd think that when they remove content like that, they'd report the offenders to legal authorities -because after all, they are only allowed to remove content that is clearly illegal- but in most cases they don't. They just want the content gone and move on, which makes it very clear that this is just a censorship tool and their generous interpretation of illegal hate speech wouldn't hold up in any court.
  - wildebaard 8y ago
    Well, if the definition of free speech is 'it should be allowed on Facebook' then that's a horrible definition :) It does point toward a bigger issue, where Facebook is used and trusted by so many users that they do not access alternative sources of information.
    - yAnonymous 8y ago
      No. The companies involved (Arvato/Bertelsmann) get to make their own rules. Facebook doesn't even have a say in this, although they're paying for it as required by the law. They were threatened with fines in the millions (up to 50 mil) if they didn't comply. The situation is absurd. Facebook is legally required to pay for censorship by companies with close ties to the government.
      - wildebaard 8y ago
        If I understand you correctly, this censorship only applies to Facebook. If that's correct, then I still do not agree with the statement 'there is no free speech' unless Facebook is your/the sole source of information. However, I do agree that it's problematic.
      - 8y ago