3 ms·
"The company says forcing it to remove such data amounts to censorship." Don't they see that personal censorship is something good opposed to government censor
by ozim 13y ago
"The company says forcing it to remove such data amounts to censorship."
Don't they see that personal censorship is something good opposed to government censorship?
- Dwolb 13y agoOne argument for why this is a bad idea has its roots in politics. Imagine if a candidate running for office (or any public figure) had the ability to santitize his search results to remove all 'bad' listings. The public perception of a candidate or political figure could always be distorted in a manner that is always favorable to the candidate. Public dissent could therefore be surpressed. Note though, I'm not necessarily for or against this bill. It could be very useful fot private citizens but we should consider how public figures are effected as well.
- ozim 13y agoI think that public figures should not be evaluated by "some things in the internet" it is easy for opponents to craft "bad" listings. On the other hand I think public figures have more power to remove such things if they have connections, lawyers and simply more money than average Joe.
- SEMW 13y ago> Note though, I'm not necessarily for or against this bill. What bill are you referring to? If you mean the EU data protection directive that this decision's interpreting, it's been law since 1995.