3 ms·

This is just the start of the inevitable slippery slope: the initial censorship doesn't work (and it never can, because information wants to be free), so they b

by zmmmmm 12y ago

This is just the start of the inevitable slippery slope: the initial censorship doesn't work (and it never can, because information wants to be free), so they broaden, widen, deepen it. Then since it is still trivial to circumvent by technical means they add laws to try and restrict technical circumvention of the censorship. Then as loopholes are found in the laws against circumvention they have to broaden and deepen those. Soon it is illegal just to know things, to tell people basic knowledge of how to do things. And thus the only viable end point is totalitarianism. There's really no in between - if you want "free speech" at all you have to take all of it or none of it.

clickok 12y ago
I disagree on a couple of points. Information doesn't want anything. There may be a statistical tendency of information to propagate, but it seems to me that the only people who want information to want to be free are those advancing an agenda with a catchy slogan. Further, the only viable endpoint is not totalitarianism-- one can argue about where on the spectrum we stand today, or might be in the future, but in the US we try to strike a balance. Unless you support being able to use whichever country's version of Google that permits things like searching for identity theft, illicit pornography, etc., it seems like we're OK with at least some restrictions on speech. Assuming we accept the EU has the authority to pass such a law, then so long as Google wishes to operate within their jurisdiction, it seems fair that it abides by the law, vis., "deleting data as requested", not "make data inaccessible to those who cannot execute a second Google search on how to subvert the restrictions".
- smsm42 12y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "search for identity theft", but once Google starts accepting requests for banning any content objectionable in any corner of the world worldwide, a mere picture of a woman with her face not hidden by a burqa would be "illicit pornography". You'd say it's too much, but we need to strike a balance between your desires and religious feelings of people in Sudan, Syria and Iran, don't we? And when you're trying to "strike the balance" by trampling on rights, the ones who cry the loudest - i.e. fanatics - will always win, unless there's a strong and impenetrable barrier that they can not overcome. Like the First Amendment in the US, which, despite all efforts, is still standing. But Europe doesn't have it, and there bans on information and suppression of unpopular expression is the norm. This is just one more example of their descent.
- syntern 12y ago
  You are saying balance, but what you mean is agreement over values. The nasty thing is, people just can't agree on anything, especially on values.

by zmmmmm 12y ago

clickok 12y ago

I disagree on a couple of points. Information doesn't want anything. There may be a statistical tendency of information to propagate, but it seems to me that the only people who want information to want to be free are those advancing an agenda with a catchy slogan. Further, the only viable endpoint is not totalitarianism-- one can argue about where on the spectrum we stand today, or might be in the future, but in the US we try to strike a balance. Unless you support being able to use whichever country's version of Google that permits things like searching for identity theft, illicit pornography, etc., it seems like we're OK with at least some restrictions on speech. Assuming we accept the EU has the authority to pass such a law, then so long as Google wishes to operate within their jurisdiction, it seems fair that it abides by the law, vis., "deleting data as requested", not "make data inaccessible to those who cannot execute a second Google search on how to subvert the restrictions".

smsm42 12y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "search for identity theft", but once Google starts accepting requests for banning any content objectionable in any corner of the world worldwide, a mere picture of a woman with her face not hidden by a burqa would be "illicit pornography". You'd say it's too much, but we need to strike a balance between your desires and religious feelings of people in Sudan, Syria and Iran, don't we? And when you're trying to "strike the balance" by trampling on rights, the ones who cry the loudest - i.e. fanatics - will always win, unless there's a strong and impenetrable barrier that they can not overcome. Like the First Amendment in the US, which, despite all efforts, is still standing. But Europe doesn't have it, and there bans on information and suppression of unpopular expression is the norm. This is just one more example of their descent.
syntern 12y ago
You are saying balance, but what you mean is agreement over values. The nasty thing is, people just can't agree on anything, especially on values.