7 ms·

From the arguments at the time when dragonfly was leaked, it was brought up that there is censorship, though in a different form, already in the EU. Be it right

by kyrra 7y ago

From the arguments at the time when dragonfly was leaked, it was brought up that there is censorship, though in a different form, already in the EU. Be it right to be forgotten, or filtering of information related to things unsavory to the past of any given country in the EU. Then the US and EU both have censorship around things protected by law. So you can sue people to take down slanderous material, or material that violates copyrights or trademarks.

Kurtz79 7y ago
Right to be forgotten gives the individual the right to have his data removed from permanent storage by companies, for whatever purpose: not sure how it relates even remotely with censorship. " filtering of information related to things unsavory to the past of any given country in the EU." Some specific reference to some EU government forcing companies to remove controversial information about their countries' past would help making your point (not saying it doesn't happen).
- dpatru 7y ago
  > Right to be forgotten gives the individual the right to have his data removed from permanent storage by companies, for whatever purpose: not sure how it relates even remotely with censorship. Books are also permanent storage, often stored centrally in public libraries. Does an individual have the right to have information about him removed from books in libraries? Wouldn't that be a kind of censorship? The only difference is that so called "right to be forgotten" applies to Google's electronic storage rather than your local library's books. Just like you don't have a right to remove pages about you from your local public library's copy of your high school yearbook, so you shouldn't have the right to remove information about yourself from Google's indexes. Both are censorship.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    No, right to be forgotten is not excercised via criminal courts. You have to reach the author of the book and make it collect all the copies.
- chillacy 7y ago
  This argument feels like the classic “is killing in wartime murder”. It’s semantic at heart.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  It's my understanding that Nazi stuff is prohibited in various ways in Germany and France. I watched a movie recently (though not a recent movie) that had a scene with some Nazi stuff in the background of one scene. The IMDB trivia notes for the film stated that the scene was removed when it was released in Germany. (If I can remember the film, I'll edit this comment.)
peteretep 7y ago
> Be it right to be forgotten Works for me, and seems to empower the people, rather than the state... > filtering of information related to things unsavory to the past of any given country in the EU Could you link me to some credible sources for this?
- kyrra 7y ago
  https://newrepublic.com/article/147364/verboten-germany-law-stopping-hate-speech-facebook-twitter https://newrepublic.com/article/147364/verboten-germany-law-... Not filtering, but censorship.
HALtheWise 7y ago
You're getting a lot of flack for this comment, but I think it's a reasonable way of looking at the problem. In the United States, we have strong cultural conceptions about what are acceptable reasons for the government and companies to forcably suppress information (copyright violations, "terrorist" content, white supremacy, child pornography) and what aren't (political dissidence, social stability, insults, most other porn). Culturally, the Chinese have about the same attitude towards political dissidence that we have towards terrorist recruiting content, and for many of the same reasons. Historically, they have seen how political turmoil, if allowed to recruit, can hurt and kill people just how we have seen that terrorism can do the same. Similarly, the American attitude towards copyright, trademark, and patent laws probably seems ridiculous and borderline unethical to Chinese companies looking to do business here. They seem (from the outside) to have no problem with a phone manufacturer calling itself "Applle" to piggyback on Apple's brand, but that is very illegal under American laws. Similarly, the amount of automatic filtering YouTube and other video hosts have to do under DMCA might block as much content as Chinese political auto-filtering does, although I would love to see more analysis of that. Being from an American cultural background myself, I have an obvious set of intuitions about which of these are reasonable and which are ridiculous, but I find it hard to make a clear argument about why.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Being from an American cultural background myself, I have an obvious set of intuitions about which of these are reasonable and which are ridiculous, but I find it hard to make a clear argument about why. And being technically from European cultural background but having ingested plenty of American-made utopian visions of the world in my formative years, I find myself to have yet different obvious set of intuitions about this. Like e.g. I think copyright-related censorship is overused and borderline unethical, while speech threatening social stability might be a problem. I say that only to reinforce your point that there's not one and not two, but many differing cultural conceptions about these things.
- pteredactyl 7y ago
  Self-governed sovereignty. You and the American entities mentioned believe this. And seek to protect it. Including trademark violators, for example (who threaten Apple's 'kingdom' so to speak).

by kyrra 7y ago

Kurtz79 7y ago

Right to be forgotten gives the individual the right to have his data removed from permanent storage by companies, for whatever purpose: not sure how it relates even remotely with censorship. " filtering of information related to things unsavory to the past of any given country in the EU." Some specific reference to some EU government forcing companies to remove controversial information about their countries' past would help making your point (not saying it doesn't happen).

dpatru 7y ago
> Right to be forgotten gives the individual the right to have his data removed from permanent storage by companies, for whatever purpose: not sure how it relates even remotely with censorship. Books are also permanent storage, often stored centrally in public libraries. Does an individual have the right to have information about him removed from books in libraries? Wouldn't that be a kind of censorship? The only difference is that so called "right to be forgotten" applies to Google's electronic storage rather than your local library's books. Just like you don't have a right to remove pages about you from your local public library's copy of your high school yearbook, so you shouldn't have the right to remove information about yourself from Google's indexes. Both are censorship.
- anticensor 7y ago
  No, right to be forgotten is not excercised via criminal courts. You have to reach the author of the book and make it collect all the copies.
chillacy 7y ago
This argument feels like the classic “is killing in wartime murder”. It’s semantic at heart.
reaperducer 7y ago
It's my understanding that Nazi stuff is prohibited in various ways in Germany and France. I watched a movie recently (though not a recent movie) that had a scene with some Nazi stuff in the background of one scene. The IMDB trivia notes for the film stated that the scene was removed when it was released in Germany. (If I can remember the film, I'll edit this comment.)

peteretep 7y ago

> Be it right to be forgotten Works for me, and seems to empower the people, rather than the state... > filtering of information related to things unsavory to the past of any given country in the EU Could you link me to some credible sources for this?

kyrra 7y ago
https://newrepublic.com/article/147364/verboten-germany-law-stopping-hate-speech-facebook-twitter https://newrepublic.com/article/147364/verboten-germany-law-... Not filtering, but censorship.

HALtheWise 7y ago

You're getting a lot of flack for this comment, but I think it's a reasonable way of looking at the problem. In the United States, we have strong cultural conceptions about what are acceptable reasons for the government and companies to forcably suppress information (copyright violations, "terrorist" content, white supremacy, child pornography) and what aren't (political dissidence, social stability, insults, most other porn). Culturally, the Chinese have about the same attitude towards political dissidence that we have towards terrorist recruiting content, and for many of the same reasons. Historically, they have seen how political turmoil, if allowed to recruit, can hurt and kill people just how we have seen that terrorism can do the same. Similarly, the American attitude towards copyright, trademark, and patent laws probably seems ridiculous and borderline unethical to Chinese companies looking to do business here. They seem (from the outside) to have no problem with a phone manufacturer calling itself "Applle" to piggyback on Apple's brand, but that is very illegal under American laws. Similarly, the amount of automatic filtering YouTube and other video hosts have to do under DMCA might block as much content as Chinese political auto-filtering does, although I would love to see more analysis of that. Being from an American cultural background myself, I have an obvious set of intuitions about which of these are reasonable and which are ridiculous, but I find it hard to make a clear argument about why.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Being from an American cultural background myself, I have an obvious set of intuitions about which of these are reasonable and which are ridiculous, but I find it hard to make a clear argument about why. And being technically from European cultural background but having ingested plenty of American-made utopian visions of the world in my formative years, I find myself to have yet different obvious set of intuitions about this. Like e.g. I think copyright-related censorship is overused and borderline unethical, while speech threatening social stability might be a problem. I say that only to reinforce your point that there's not one and not two, but many differing cultural conceptions about these things.
pteredactyl 7y ago
Self-governed sovereignty. You and the American entities mentioned believe this. And seek to protect it. Including trademark violators, for example (who threaten Apple's 'kingdom' so to speak).