The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I don't think it's possible to continue this conversation with you.
Snippet copyright is bad, ergo privacy is bad, too.
Yeah, you’re proving this well enough.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I don't think it's possible to continue this conversation with you.
Likewise. Your position seems to be "the EU did some bad things to Google, so everything must be about extracting money from Google".
It's impossible to argue against that, since you're ignoring literally any other way to look at any regulation affecting Google. Any criticism of Google's monopoly and any laws affecting Google are automatically invalid and just proof of the big conspiracy.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Now you're just ranting and repeating your personal opinions
If it's just a personal opinion and not a fact, then where's the evidence to the contrary?
Where is the European Google? Where's the European Facebook? Or Amazon, or Microsoft? I'm honestly trying hard here, and I can't think of a single European tech company that's a household name in the USA. Manufacturing, sure, particularly in the auto space. But when it comes to software... the closest thing I can think of -- and this is really roundabout -- is CERN, because that's where Tim Berners-Lee was working when he invented HTML. (Based off of IBM's SGML and Apple's HyperCard technology. And it only ever got big because of Mosaic and Netscape. So... yeah.)
Does SAP count? They do seem to have had a relation to IBM and Xerox though...
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
delisted from search engines
yes but this doesn't mean that the articles, the actual freedom of speech, is gone. That was exactly the court's decision ... search engine's listings are not freedom of speech.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
European Facebook
Funny example because this is an example of a company that aggressively went against competition and uses personal data as it's primary source of income. A company that was founded on some questionable ethical decisions.
S the real lesson then seems to be there was or isn't such a big cunt as Zuckerberg in Europe. Ok, Blakey, you can have that one.
-
@JBert said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Does SAP count?
Probably not because that's business only software. Although I always think of them as a German Oracle. Siemens and Philips both are big software houses too but in very selected fields (e.g. health care) with a link to their physical activities.
-
@dfdub He's just playing the whataboutism card. It is a distraction from the debate whenever used and indicates someone running out of actual debating power.
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
S the real lesson then seems to be there was or isn't such a big cunt as Zuckerberg in Europe. Ok, Blakey, you can have that one.
Europe has had some people who were just as big an asshole as Zuckerberg, just they've gravitated more to different fields (such as politics). That is why there is a war crimes court after all.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
it's called "Universal Jurisdiction,"
Have you come around yet to answering why it's fine when the US does that?
It's only bad if he doesn't like it.
Fun fact: I distinctly recall @Mason_Wheeler being rather fond of Steam's recent-ish refund policy. Those damn Australians enforcing their "Australian Consumer Law" on poor American companies that dare to conduct business there!!!‼
-
Skimming around about to fake catching up, this thread almost reads like a Mafia game, but with no votes.
I know Town will lose, so it's kinda boring...
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
delisted from search engines
yes but this doesn't mean that the articles, the actual freedom of speech, is gone. That was exactly the court's decision ... search engine's listings are not freedom of speech.
Is Google not entitled to freedom of speech?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Is Google not entitled to freedom of speech?
It's weird how we're even discussing that when Google itself doesn't even seem to care. They just auto-approve every attempt to take content down these days.
-
@dfdub I also find it weird that we are supposed to give companies the same fundamental rights as actual humans.
-
@Rhywden
In the case of freedom of press, it makes some sense in general. And while Google searches are entirely unlike journalism, deleting data from any sort of public database is definitely questionable.
-
@dfdub That's a different right, though, and one that was explicitly granted in our constitution.
-
@Rhywden
Isn't it what we were talking about, though? There may be differences between the US interpretation of "freedom of speech" and similar rights in other countries, but in this particular case, all of them may be affected.But as long as Google just removes everything upon request and there's no court case, we have no idea how a court of law would rule in this instance, so all we're doing is speculating.
-
@dfdub No, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are two related, but different subjects. For instance, Freedom of Press gives you the right to protect your sources.
-
@Rhywden
For my own sanity, I always mentally replace one with the other when an American talks about Freedom of Speech.
-
@dkf said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub He's just playing the whataboutism card. It is a distraction from the debate whenever used and indicates someone running out of actual debating power.
...excuse me? I'm keeping this focused on the actual issue here, which is the abuses inherent in the GDPR, abuses of sovereignty and of sanity. Every time I try to get the conversation back on track, it's the defenders of the GDRP who try to derail it with "what about privacy abuses???" and "what about the USA doing some other thing that is vaguely similar if you squint at it hard enough?" I'm basically the only one not engaging in rampant whataboutism in this debate, because I'm the only one who doesn't have to!
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub That's a different right, though, and one that was explicitly granted in our constitution.
So if you don't interfere with the newspaper at its place of business in any way, but you do shut down the newspaper stands and paper routes where it's being distributed so that no one can receive the story, the paper's freedom of the press has not been violated in any way and everything is all hunky and dory?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
which is the abuses inherent in the GDPR
We've already tried telling you that they're in your head, but when you were confronted with the fact that laws already didn't stop at borders before, you changed the topic. It's hard to converse about a topic when one of the sides ignores all counterarguments.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Copyright
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub I also find it weird that we are supposed to give companies the same fundamental rights as actual humans.
Are these companies made up of only robots? Or is there some other way to interpret this that actually makes sense?
-
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Is Google not entitled to freedom of speech?
It's weird how we're even discussing that when Google itself doesn't even seem to care. They just auto-approve every attempt to take content down these days.
This is begging the question.
Google approves requests to delist stories EXPLICITLY BECAUSE they know EU courts are going to interpret the GDPR against them.
That's not an argument that the Right to be Forgotten provision of the GDPR is a good idea.
EDIT: Took out a garagey comment because I forgot this isn't a garage topic.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Google approves requests to delist stories EXPLICITLY BECAUSE they know EU kangaroo courts are going to interpret the GDPR against them.
Asserting that without any proof is a great way to have a constructive conversation. We can just fling the word "kangaroo court" at each other to discredit the legal system on the other side of the pond and everyone is happy, right? Remember you're not in the garage.
That's not an argument that the Right to be Forgotten provision of the GDPR is a good idea.
AFAIK, there is no explicit provision. In case I'm wrong, feel free to enlighten me.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
We've already tried telling you that they're in your head
So you've been gaslighting me. Thank you for finally admitting it. Now that the abuse has been confessed and is out in the open, we can work on addressing it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub That's a different right, though, and one that was explicitly granted in our constitution.
So if you don't interfere with the newspaper at its place of business in any way, but you do shut down the newspaper stands and paper routes where it's being distributed so that no one can receive the story, the paper's freedom of the press has not been violated in any way and everything is all hunky and dory?
What on earth are you yammering on about now?
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
AFAIK, there is no explicit provision.
-
@Mason_Wheeler Say, did you read your own link? Here, I'll help you:
The right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub That's a different right, though, and one that was explicitly granted in our constitution.
So if you don't interfere with the newspaper at its place of business in any way, but you do shut down the newspaper stands and paper routes where it's being distributed so that no one can receive the story, the paper's freedom of the press has not been violated in any way and everything is all hunky and dory?
What on earth are you yammering on about now?
It's an analogy. Please try to keep up.
News sites get their traffic primarily through search engines. If someone uses a RTBF request, not against the news site itself, but against the search engine, the result is exactly the same: the article is effectively censored from public view because the public doesn't end up finding it. It's the digital equivalent of interfering with a physical newspaper's distribution rather than its production.
-
@Mason_Wheeler
That doesn't directly apply to Google search results. The right to have links removed is assumed to be an implication of other privacy rights, but it's not explicitly codified anywhere.
-
@Mason_Wheeler Please read your own fucking link first, will you?
Particularly the part where:
When does the right to erasure not apply?
Maybe also:
When does the right to erasure apply?
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler Say, did you read your own link? Here, I'll help you:
The right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances.
Yes, obviously. Laws have limitations, news at 11!
The existence of limitations does not necessarily imply that the limitations are reasonable, nor that they are sufficient to prevent abuse.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler Say, did you read your own link? Here, I'll help you:
The right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances.
Yes, obviously. Laws have limitations, news at 11!
The existence of limitations does not necessarily imply that the limitations are reasonable, nor that they are sufficient to prevent abuse.
READ YOUR FUCKING LINK!
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
We can just fling the word "kangaroo court" at each other to discredit the legal system on the other side of the pond and everyone is happy, right? Remember you're not in the garage.
I thought this was a garage topic when I posted that. Since it isn't, I re-edited the initial post.
I'm not sure what more you need in the way of proof that the EU is ruling that Google needs to delist stories because of the GDPR and the RTBF. Are you saying that they aren't?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear If the EU is ruling that then shouldn't there be, say ... an actual rule about that? Like, from a court?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
So you've been gaslighting me.
"Hey, would you please finally respond to my arguments?"
abuse
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear If the EU is ruling that then shouldn't there be, say ... an actual rule about that? Like, from a court?
Oh, you mean like the court ruling that invented the RTBF in the first place? It's literally always been about Google and search engines, from the very beginning.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I'm not sure what more you need in the way of proof that the EU is ruling that Google needs to delist stories because of the GDPR and the RTBF. Are you saying that they aren't?
Yes. All I read so far is a vague allegation to a legal opinion of a UK government agency.
I'm willing to believe that a private person without any relevance to the general public could get Google results deleted by referring to privacy rights. I'm not willing to believe that a criminal trying to delete news stories about significant misdeeds would win in a court of law, as @Mason_Wheeler alleged.
-
@Mason_Wheeler And? I can easily see why the guy didn't want to crop up again and again when the issue is long past.
But then again, we know how you guys just love your pillories and simply love to deny everyone their chance at rehabilitation. Fucking medieval, that's the mindset at display here.
Please tell me how it's relevant to anyone when the debt has been paid and the guy has since not been in any financial troubles whatsoever. For more than a decade, mind.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Please tell me how it's relevant to anyone when the debt has been paid and the guy has since not been in any financial troubles whatsoever.
Why do we teach about the Holocaust in history class? The perpetrators have been punished and the country has since not been in any moral troubles whatsoever.
-
@Unperverted-Vixen said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Please tell me how it's relevant to anyone when the debt has been paid and the guy has since not been in any financial troubles whatsoever.
Why do we teach about the Holocaust in history class? The perpetrators have been punished and the country has since not been in any moral troubles whatsoever.
Yes, indeed. Having your house repossessed due to debts is clearly on the level of the holocaust!
Well, now that the thread has been successfully Godwin'ed I'll bug out.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Please tell me how it's relevant to anyone when the debt has been paid and the guy has since not been in any financial troubles whatsoever. For more than a decade, mind.
much?
: If the RTBF and European courts are forcing Google to take things down, where are the court rulings?
: They've been there since the very beginning. The RTBF was literally created by a court legislating from the bench in a case against Google.
: Well, was the data he wanted censored really relevant anyway?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I'm basically the only one not engaging in rampant whataboutism in this debate, because I'm the only one who doesn't have to!
That’s why you brought up the snippet copyright crap, isn’t it?
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
What on earth are you yammering on about now?
It's an analogy. Please try to keep up.
News sites get their traffic primarily through search engines. If someone uses a RTBF request, not against the news site itself, but against the search engine, the result is exactly the same: the article is effectively censored from public view because the public doesn't end up finding it. It's the digital equivalent of interfering with a physical newspaper's distribution rather than its production.
Since you brought it up yourself:
That makes a whole lot of sense considering the newspapers have been actively fighting Google News with the snippet copyright bullshit you mentioned.
You are aware that you don’t need to type a website’s address into the google search bar but can use your browser’s address bar directly?Really, it’s rather the digital equivalent of not being presented with “this guy passed out drunk in Highschool 15 years ago” as the very first thing when you look up their phone number.
But coming from a culture that doesn’t believe in social rehabilitation, of course you wouldn’t understand that.
-
@Mason_Wheeler
Now actually read that link and notice how far away that story is from Bernie Madoff's. Or the Holocaust, @Unperverted-Vixen. You guys are erecting a maze of straw men here.The so-called "right to be forgotten" doesn't impact the ability to report stories of public interest. And it legally cannot, since that fundamental right is codified in every European constitution.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler
Now actually read that link and notice how far away that story is from Bernie Madoff's. Or the Holocaust, @Unperverted-Vixen. You guys are erecting a maze of straw men here.The so-called "right to be forgotten" doesn't impact the ability to report stories of public interest. And it legally cannot, since that fundamental right is codified in every European constitution.
...and it doesn't need to, when censoriously-minded criminals can go after the means of distribution instead. Approximately 2/3 of RTBF requests received by Google have been people trying to cover up crimes ranging from fraud and financial scams, to child pornography, to violence and murder.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
That makes a whole lot of sense considering the newspapers have been actively fighting Google News with the snippet copyright bullshit you mentioned.
No, "the newspapers" haven't. Most of them were well aware of exactly how disastrous it is and were actively fighting against it. It was a small handful of big, powerful newspapers pushing for it, and they're the ones who got listened to. (A sufficiently cynical person might even suggest that they did so knowing the harm it would inflict upon their smaller, independent competition, for the express purpose of causing that harm!)
-
@Mason_Wheeler they might as well try to cover it up under the DMCA instead, with just as much standing. Now what do you conclude from that?
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler they might as well try to cover it up under the DMCA instead, with just as much standing. Now what do you conclude from that?
Umm... that you're spewing gibberish because you have no valid points to make? What exactly am I supposed to conclude from that?