4 ms·

> So you're "only" talking about censoring/destroying conversation, phone calls, letters, messages, newspapers, paintings and such? "Destroying a person's dat

> So you're "only" talking about censoring/destroying conversation, phone calls, letters, messages, newspapers, paintings and such? "Destroying a person's data" and "destroying Google's copies of that data" are two different things. It's quite possible that Aunt Sally could keep her conversations, poems, paintings, macaroni pictures, or what have you, without allowing Google to index those things or make its own copies.

xoa 3y ago
>"Destroying a person's data" and "destroying Google's copies of that data" are two different things. Why? How many people may they share copies with before it's no longer allowed in your opinion? What is your basis for calculating that? >It's quite possible that Aunt Sally could keep her conversations, poems, paintings, macaroni pictures, or what have you, without allowing Google to index those things or make its own copies. Of course she can choose not to allow Google to index those things or make its own copies, but why should she be forced not to? Or Google forced not to? What about her circle of friends, and how big can that circle be? What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? What about if it's a newspaper, can they index it or make copies? A single journalist? Researcher? What does "newspaper", "journalist", or "researcher" even mean as a matter of law? Are only certain elites allowed now? And on and on. You shouldn't argue for a big new expansion of government force restricting information over and above defamation law without really being able to think all this through IMO. Details really matter. Imagine the absolute worst populist wannabe dictators at not merely national scale but at the local small town scale that doesn't get much attention but has real power to affect people's lives. What are they going to do with this? Does it matter if they'd lose a 6-figure lawsuit in the end if no one they would go after can afford to fight it? That's not a theoretical threat. Anti-SLAPP laws help a lot by making things much cheaper thanks to a fairly straight forward (under defamation law) low pass filter. A judge can determine pretty easily if there is a colorable case or not. As the linked article says, "right to be forgotten" is complex and case-by-case, ie, expensive. And we know that "expensive lawsuit" means "bullies will use this for illegitimate ends", so we should be very cautious about opening up mass applicable complex new forms of action without really thinking it through.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Why? How many people may they share copies with before it's no longer allowed in your opinion? Zero. Google is allowed to share zero copies. That's the whole point, right? > but why should she be forced not to? She isn't "forced not to". Google is forced not to. I'm not sure why you can't see the difference here. > What about her circle of friends, and how big can that circle be? Google isn't "her circle of friends". > What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? Google isn't allowed to index it. And?
  - RHSeeger 3y ago
    > She isn't "forced not to". Google is forced not to. > I'm not sure why you can't see the difference here. Indeed. This is a poor analogy, but it seems kind of like the difference between 1. Aunt Becky is allowed to keep a diary with lies about you 2. Aunt Becky is allowed to show those lies about you to Susan 3. Aunt Becky is allowed to take out a newspaper add sharing those lies about you, in every newspaper in the world, for the rest of time There's a gap between 1 and 2 where you can make an argument. There's a HUGE gap between 2 and 3.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > There's a HUGE gap between 2 and 3. Definitely. With 1 or 2, the lies aren't in a searchable database accessible to (e.g.) potential employers, or any rando stalker with an internet connection. That's a very important difference.
  - Agrue8u 3y ago
    >> What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? >Google isn't allowed to index it. I assume you mean Google can't index the forbidden names on her blog. Or is her entire blog now unfindable because she included a forbidden name? How does Google know if the name, of which multiple named people may exist, is the forbidden one? What of the rights of samed named people to be found?
    - 3y ago

xoa 3y ago

>"Destroying a person's data" and "destroying Google's copies of that data" are two different things. Why? How many people may they share copies with before it's no longer allowed in your opinion? What is your basis for calculating that? >It's quite possible that Aunt Sally could keep her conversations, poems, paintings, macaroni pictures, or what have you, without allowing Google to index those things or make its own copies. Of course she can choose not to allow Google to index those things or make its own copies, but why should she be forced not to? Or Google forced not to? What about her circle of friends, and how big can that circle be? What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? What about if it's a newspaper, can they index it or make copies? A single journalist? Researcher? What does "newspaper", "journalist", or "researcher" even mean as a matter of law? Are only certain elites allowed now? And on and on. You shouldn't argue for a big new expansion of government force restricting information over and above defamation law without really being able to think all this through IMO. Details really matter. Imagine the absolute worst populist wannabe dictators at not merely national scale but at the local small town scale that doesn't get much attention but has real power to affect people's lives. What are they going to do with this? Does it matter if they'd lose a 6-figure lawsuit in the end if no one they would go after can afford to fight it? That's not a theoretical threat. Anti-SLAPP laws help a lot by making things much cheaper thanks to a fairly straight forward (under defamation law) low pass filter. A judge can determine pretty easily if there is a colorable case or not. As the linked article says, "right to be forgotten" is complex and case-by-case, ie, expensive. And we know that "expensive lawsuit" means "bullies will use this for illegitimate ends", so we should be very cautious about opening up mass applicable complex new forms of action without really thinking it through.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Why? How many people may they share copies with before it's no longer allowed in your opinion? Zero. Google is allowed to share zero copies. That's the whole point, right? > but why should she be forced not to? She isn't "forced not to". Google is forced not to. I'm not sure why you can't see the difference here. > What about her circle of friends, and how big can that circle be? Google isn't "her circle of friends". > What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? Google isn't allowed to index it. And?
- RHSeeger 3y ago
  > She isn't "forced not to". Google is forced not to. > I'm not sure why you can't see the difference here. Indeed. This is a poor analogy, but it seems kind of like the difference between 1. Aunt Becky is allowed to keep a diary with lies about you 2. Aunt Becky is allowed to show those lies about you to Susan 3. Aunt Becky is allowed to take out a newspaper add sharing those lies about you, in every newspaper in the world, for the rest of time There's a gap between 1 and 2 where you can make an argument. There's a HUGE gap between 2 and 3.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > There's a HUGE gap between 2 and 3. Definitely. With 1 or 2, the lies aren't in a searchable database accessible to (e.g.) potential employers, or any rando stalker with an internet connection. That's a very important difference.
- Agrue8u 3y ago
  >> What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? >Google isn't allowed to index it. I assume you mean Google can't index the forbidden names on her blog. Or is her entire blog now unfindable because she included a forbidden name? How does Google know if the name, of which multiple named people may exist, is the forbidden one? What of the rights of samed named people to be found?
  - 3y ago