4 ms·

Can someone explain if "right to be forgotten" laws and processes are equivalent to China's "wall" of censorship and processes?

by loceng 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
They aren't. But Google really didn't want to obey a perfectly reasonable law in Europe, and absolutely wants to do business in China regardless of the social cost, and so is making a false equivalency to try and justify a morally bankrupt position. Europe is censoring personal and private information that harms ordinary citizens and is not of the public interest in order to protect European citizens. China is censoring information about the government, people's rights, and major historical events in order to control society. If you remove the absolutist "free speech is always right" position, the former is about protecting citizens and the latter is about protecting the government.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  You are assuming the pretense is accurate about right to be forgotten. Never listen to claimed intentions but actions. Nigh every dictator claims to be "for the people". Actual right to be forgotten sees frequent use from conmen who don't want pesky things like their past crimes giving away the game. I would rather not have memory holes for one.
puzzle 8y ago
It's a slippery slope. It certainly gives fodder to China and other countries to say "Hey, look, you have the tools to censor results for X, Y and Z, because those laws say so. Why not ours?" The Canadian case was even worse than RTBF.
ma2rten 8y ago
I will try to give an objective answer. They have a different underlying value system. Europe believes in individualism and privacy. China believes in collectivism and harmony. Right to be forgotten protects the individual. China's wall protects the government.
- puzzle 8y ago
  No matter the values and principles, no matter whether you agree with them or not, at the end of the day both positions are the law in the respective territories. You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me - a very amoral and commercial way of looking at things: you don't belong to any society, and don't wish to exercise any control in any society, and the only way in which you can or should exercise your rights is in where you do business. It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent).
    - loceng 8y ago
      Right, and a growing concern is understanding the dangers and unavoidable pitfalls of censorship - even if the people who want to implement the systems have good hearts and mean for the best, it can make it easier for bad actors to take those systems over and silence who and what they want - and it can be subtle; imagine if such censorship existed in the US, and the Trump administration had control over it - do you think we would have heard anything about the Khashoggi trap, torture, and assassination by bad actors in Saudi?
    - puzzle 8y ago
      I thought this whole conversation was in the context of companies like Google? I don't think companies are people. They definitely don't get to flout the laws as they see fit, but they have the right to operate in the markets they choose. Even lobbying makes me uneasy. As to the laws, yes, it's up to the citizens to shape and evolve them, through a referendum, elected official, regime change or whatever other way. But once they're signed, they're the law.
    - 8y ago
tdb7893 8y ago
Equivalent doesn't seem right but the idea is that they are down information that the government tells them to. The difference is just the government rationale for having it taken down (which clearly hugely important). I was curious about it and my interpretation of the official company stance is they they can either do their best to give the Chinese what the best search they can or not try to give them any help at all.

Can someone explain if "right to be forgotten" laws and processes are equivalent to China's "wall" of censorship and processes?

by loceng 8y ago

Can someone explain if "right to be forgotten" laws and processes are equivalent to China's "wall" of censorship and processes?

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

They aren't. But Google really didn't want to obey a perfectly reasonable law in Europe, and absolutely wants to do business in China regardless of the social cost, and so is making a false equivalency to try and justify a morally bankrupt position. Europe is censoring personal and private information that harms ordinary citizens and is not of the public interest in order to protect European citizens. China is censoring information about the government, people's rights, and major historical events in order to control society. If you remove the absolutist "free speech is always right" position, the former is about protecting citizens and the latter is about protecting the government.

Nasrudith 8y ago
You are assuming the pretense is accurate about right to be forgotten. Never listen to claimed intentions but actions. Nigh every dictator claims to be "for the people". Actual right to be forgotten sees frequent use from conmen who don't want pesky things like their past crimes giving away the game. I would rather not have memory holes for one.

puzzle 8y ago

It's a slippery slope. It certainly gives fodder to China and other countries to say "Hey, look, you have the tools to censor results for X, Y and Z, because those laws say so. Why not ours?" The Canadian case was even worse than RTBF.

ma2rten 8y ago

I will try to give an objective answer. They have a different underlying value system. Europe believes in individualism and privacy. China believes in collectivism and harmony. Right to be forgotten protects the individual. China's wall protects the government.

puzzle 8y ago
No matter the values and principles, no matter whether you agree with them or not, at the end of the day both positions are the law in the respective territories. You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me - a very amoral and commercial way of looking at things: you don't belong to any society, and don't wish to exercise any control in any society, and the only way in which you can or should exercise your rights is in where you do business. It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent).
  - loceng 8y ago
    Right, and a growing concern is understanding the dangers and unavoidable pitfalls of censorship - even if the people who want to implement the systems have good hearts and mean for the best, it can make it easier for bad actors to take those systems over and silence who and what they want - and it can be subtle; imagine if such censorship existed in the US, and the Trump administration had control over it - do you think we would have heard anything about the Khashoggi trap, torture, and assassination by bad actors in Saudi?
  - puzzle 8y ago
    I thought this whole conversation was in the context of companies like Google? I don't think companies are people. They definitely don't get to flout the laws as they see fit, but they have the right to operate in the markets they choose. Even lobbying makes me uneasy. As to the laws, yes, it's up to the citizens to shape and evolve them, through a referendum, elected official, regime change or whatever other way. But once they're signed, they're the law.
  - 8y ago

tdb7893 8y ago

Equivalent doesn't seem right but the idea is that they are down information that the government tells them to. The difference is just the government rationale for having it taken down (which clearly hugely important). I was curious about it and my interpretation of the official company stance is they they can either do their best to give the Chinese what the best search they can or not try to give them any help at all.