3 ms·

I was being a bit snarky, apologies. But at the end of the day, we are still talking about making knowledge inaccessible. It may be necessary to protect indiv

by rpenm 12y ago

I was being a bit snarky, apologies. But at the end of the day, we are still talking about making knowledge inaccessible. It may be necessary to protect individual privacy, but it still worries me. Each case will be about weighing the harms to the individual against the harms to the public. Powerful interests will find ways to exploit such a subtle system for their own benefit.

nraynaud 12y ago
We are talking about protecting individual against corporations. Currently media corporation are all powerful and only big money can fight them with enough media splash to make a record straight (or do a PR white washing campaign after a crisis). This law doesn't suppress the information, it does the equivalent of forcing you to go to the basement of the newspaper to find some select personal informations concerning individual people. Moreover the concept of free speech itself has been high-jacked by big money for bullshit (the nickname for citizen united), so I don't see how it's protecting anyone from anything, it's part of the game. Free speech was just a protection of political ideas against the government and it's mostly dead in the days of terrorism law.