4 ms·

> 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 whol

> 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?
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  That's Google's problem. Note that they already have a well-established takedown mechanism for copyright violations.

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?

Turing_Machine 3y ago
That's Google's problem. Note that they already have a well-established takedown mechanism for copyright violations.