Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
I didn't start using the term, @GuyWhoKilledBear did. I'm just pointing out that "Freedom of the Press" only applies to "the Press" - and Google isn't "the Press", by choice (they will argue in court, that they aren't). If you mean it as "Freedom of Speech", then just use "Freedom of Speech", yes?
"Freedom of the Press" is "Freedom of Speech" but written down, not spoken. Like the difference between slander and libel (which may be English language / law distinctions, just like speech / press are American distinctions).
Not quite, but that's besides the point.
Your Eurosplaining is amusing, but wrong.
The point is Google isn't "speaking" - and will argue vehemently that they aren't "speaking" - because that would make them liable for their speech and they don't want that.
Uh...they are speaking. Just in written form. It's a particular kind of speech, true, and there are caveats about it. But it's speech in an American context.
Do you even law, bro?
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It’s funny that’s downvoted as it is usually the argument from the right wing garage denizens whenever any right is mentioned, even something as fundamental as the right to live, that any rights only exist because power enforces them.
I have no idea what or who you're talking about.
I'm certainty in favor of the right to life. It bothers me that the US government is not using its power to enforce the right to life.
Just what I said, that rights only become meaningful as society agrees on and enforces them.
I'm not sure what you mean by rights "becoming meaningful." Rights exist independent of society, and you can judge a good government from a bad government by their willingness to protect the peoples' rights.
What do you make of the US government’s unwillingness to protect my right to be forgotten?
You don't have a right to be forgotten. Nobody believes you do, not even the French. (If they did, they would have made the newspaper take the story down.)
Natural laws does not give you the right to have the government force a third party to do something nice on your behalf.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
I didn't start using the term, @GuyWhoKilledBear did. I'm just pointing out that "Freedom of the Press" only applies to "the Press" - and Google isn't "the Press", by choice (they will argue in court, that they aren't). If you mean it as "Freedom of Speech", then just use "Freedom of Speech", yes?
"Freedom of the Press" is "Freedom of Speech" but written down, not spoken. Like the difference between slander and libel (which may be English language / law distinctions, just like speech / press are American distinctions).
Not quite, but that's besides the point.
Your Eurosplaining is amusing, but wrong.
The point is Google isn't "speaking" - and will argue vehemently that they aren't "speaking" - because that would make them liable for their speech and they don't want that.
Uh...they are speaking. Just in written form. It's a particular kind of speech, true, and there are caveats about it. But it's speech in an American context.
Do you even law, bro?
Better than you, apparently.
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
You're talking about liability for in case they've put out something illegal or tortious. There are multiple levels of freedom here. However you characterize their speech, the US government can't regulate their speech for content except for saying stuff that is illegal to say (they don't have permission via copyright, etc, it's libel (which for one thing means that it's not true), other illegal speech).
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
You're confusing yourself here. Please stop.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
If they go with that, then they need to be very clear that they never censor anything for any reason, but can tell you who is the content publisher that you might want to contact about the legality of the said content. But once they start actually censoring stuff or otherwise exercising any form of editorial control, things get tricky legally. (Alas, the other side of the problem is that there are quite a lot of “content publishers” who really do need to be excluded from search results because they are trying to drown out the results that people want with their
; I'm talking about content farms, who want maximum ad revenue without any responsibility to produce things that any ordinary person wants to see.)Damned if they do. Damned if they don't.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
You're talking about liability for in case they've put out something illegal or tortious. There are multiple levels of freedom here. However you characterize their speech, the US government can't regulate their speech for content except for saying stuff that is illegal to say (they don't have permission via copyright, etc, it's libel (which for one thing means that it's not true), other illegal speech).
Sigh. I sometimes forget what it's like trying to explain things to Americans. I'll try to make it super simple, just for you.
Google displays a bunch of stuff in it's search results, on YouTube and on its other places that "is illegal" - in the sense that a person who makes such content public will have to pay a lot of money and possibly even go to jail for it.
Google doesn't want to pay a lot of money and its owners/management don't want to go to jail.
How can Google continue to operate without paying a lot of money and its owners/management not going to jail?
We create what is called a "legal fiction" - we pretend that things are so-and-so, rather than how they really are. We play make-believe, you understand?
The make-believe story is that when Google displays "stuff that is illegal" to you, it's not Google that's saying that at all. Instead, it is the person whom Google is linking to, or the person who uploaded the YouTube video, etc.
We pretend that Google isn't speaking, so they aren't held liable for "saying stuff that is illegal". But because we're pretending that Google isn't speaking, they can't claim Free Speech protections, because that would mean that they were actually speaking.
Is this clear enough or do I need to explain some of the bigger words?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
-
@ixvedeusi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
That whole "I know the Universal Truth and everyone who disagrees with me must be forced to Enlightenment"
Dude, I said I wasn't going to come liberate you.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
We pretend that Google isn't speaking,
No, that's on you.
Is this clear enough or do I need to explain some of the bigger words?
Just...stop being wrong? In absolutely no way are they not speaking. Again, in the American context. Your kilometrage may vary in other jurisdictions. We're now discussing who is liable when they say something they have no right to say. But if they didn't say it, then there's nothing to talk about, because they didn't say the thing they're supposed to be getting in trouble for.
-
@dkf said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
If they go with that, then they need to be very clear that they never censor anything for any reason, but can tell you who is the content publisher that you might want to contact about the legality of the said content.
That's not strictly true either. The DMCA is a thing, for one.
But once they start actually censoring stuff or otherwise exercising any form of editorial control, things get tricky legally.
Uh-huh.
(Alas, the other side of the problem is that there are quite a lot of “content publishers” who really do need to be excluded from search results because they are trying to drown out the results that people want with their
; I'm talking about content farms, who want maximum ad revenue without any responsibility to produce things that any ordinary person wants to see.)Just like Google, then.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
We pretend that Google isn't speaking,
No, that's on you.
Is this clear enough or do I need to explain some of the bigger words?
Just...stop being wrong? In absolutely no way are they not speaking. Again, in the American context. Your kilometrage may vary in other jurisdictions. We're now discussing who is liable when they say something they have no right to say. But if they didn't say it, then there's nothing to talk about, because they didn't say the thing they're supposed to be getting in trouble for.
Well... I tried. There's no helping some people.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
We pretend that Google isn't speaking,
No, that's on you.
Is this clear enough or do I need to explain some of the bigger words?
Just...stop being wrong? In absolutely no way are they not speaking. Again, in the American context. Your kilometrage may vary in other jurisdictions. We're now discussing who is liable when they say something they have no right to say. But if they didn't say it, then there's nothing to talk about, because they didn't say the thing they're supposed to be getting in trouble for.
Well... I tried. There's no helping some people.
When someone claims that speech is not speech...I'm not sure how to correct that.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Dude, I said I wasn't going to come liberate you.
Yeah but I'm attributing that entirely to
and not to any lack of desire to do so 
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
Your understanding is incorrect
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
No, because the distinction has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the person.
If Google search results are "publication/press/speech" in this case, they are "publication/press/speech" in all cases. That's the default and without legally provided safe harbours, Google is on the hook for everything in its search results.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I’m sure you’re also one of those “if you don’t have anything to hide you have nothing to fear” people who are fine with having the world install a camera in their bathroom.
No, but yes.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
In fact, I never said that.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
Google censored the article in question in France. The court case was over whether Google could be forced to censor the article in results it served to Americans.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
In fact, I never said that.
[W]hat if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
Then they jolly well would have, which we know 'coz they did and we know they did.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
In fact, I never said that.
[W]hat if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
Then they jolly well would have, which we know 'coz they did and we know they did.
And? As mentioned, the point was whether US law requires it because the foreign government wants it censored.
-
I am not saying that the discussion isn't interesting (although it certainly is pointless), but it completely avoid the real contended topic.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The very fact that the French conception of rights is flawed is the reason I don't want it applied in American-to-American transactions.
When and how does that happen? Or will happen? Or would happen? Because it definitely looks
to me.Ok, I can imagine that company that conforms to regulations X often does that globally, to simplify their operations. But it definitely is not universal and many global companies can and do handle many different and sometimes even contradictory regulations and corresponding processes. Facebook can do it as well, without affecting their US clients and products.
Of course, that might require strict separation of data. Big deal (again, many other companies do that).
Do I miss something?
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
Your understanding is incorrect
Nobody else has ever disputed that when this topic comes up on this site, and it comes up every time the GDPR does. Enlighten me. What was the court case about?
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
No, because the distinction has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the person.
What makes you think that? That's not true at all because everyone has the same Free Speech and Free Press rights.
If Google search results are "publication/press/speech" in this case, they are "publication/press/speech" in all cases. That's the default and without legally provided safe harbours, Google is on the hook for everything in its search results.
Google's search results are Google's speech. I don't think they've ever claimed otherwise. It's all of the form "There's a webpage about $X at $LINK," but that's still Google's speech.
If you think that saying "There's a webpage about $X at $LINK" is supposed to be illegal, I'm going to need more convincing.
Google claims a publisher/platform distinction for YouTube, where it claims it allows others to publish their own speech on Google's platform. But that's a different platform/publication than its search results, which are unquestionably Google's publication rather than someone else's.
-
Me: Wow, this thread has had a lot of activity in the past day.
I'll just jump to the latest page.
Also me: Wow, I don't know what anybody is talking about any more.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
Google censored the article in question in France. The court case was over whether Google could be forced to censor the article in results it served to Americans.
The law as written is:
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies
They're not precluded from serving it to Americans - they're not supposed to store it at all.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I guess I'm not willing to take up arms and liberate you guys over it.
'Murica! You will have freedom even if I have to force it on you!
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
Your understanding is incorrect
Nobody else has ever disputed that when this topic comes up on this site, and it comes up every time the GDPR does. Enlighten me. What was the court case about?
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
No, because the distinction has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the person.
What makes you think that? That's not true at all because everyone has the same Free Speech and Free Press rights.
If Google search results are "publication/press/speech" in this case, they are "publication/press/speech" in all cases. That's the default and without legally provided safe harbours, Google is on the hook for everything in its search results.
Google's search results are Google's speech. I don't think they've ever claimed otherwise. It's all of the form "There's a webpage about $X at $LINK," but that's still Google's speech.
For legal purposes, no, which is how they claim safe harbour.
If you think that saying "There's a webpage about $X at $LINK" is supposed to be illegal, I'm going to need more convincing.
How about pornographic images of children popping up in image search?
Google claims a publisher/platform distinction for YouTube, where it claims it allows others to publish their own speech on Google's platform. But that's a different platform/publication than its search results, which are unquestionably Google's publication rather than someone else's.
Google claims a publisher/platform distinction whenever and on whatever side it is convenient for them to do so.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
In fact, I never said that.
[W]hat if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
Then they jolly well would have, which we know 'coz they did and we know they did.
And? As mentioned, the point was whether US law requires it because the foreign government wants it censored.
No, of course not. Why would it? Nobody gives a flying frisbee about what US law requires.
-
@dkf said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
If they go with that, then they need to be very clear that they never censor anything for any reason, but can tell you who is the content publisher that you might want to contact about the legality of the said content. But once they start actually censoring stuff or otherwise exercising any form of editorial control, things get tricky legally.
47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction
I'm still doing some research related to President Trump's "Preventing Online Censorship" draft Executive Order, and hope to post more...
(Alas, the other side of the problem is that there are quite a lot of “content publishers” who really do need to be excluded from search results because they are trying to drown out the results that people want with their
; I'm talking about content farms, who want maximum ad revenue without any responsibility to produce things that any ordinary person wants to see.)I'm more concerned with it being used to spread literal propaganda to influence elections. "Fake news" isn't a story you don't like on cable television, it's a completely fabricated political article on a website that's just a potemkin village of a seemingly legitimate news website.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I am not saying that the discussion isn't interesting (although it certainly is pointless), but it completely avoid the real contended topic.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The very fact that the French conception of rights is flawed is the reason I don't want it applied in American-to-American transactions.
When and how does that happen? Or will happen? Or would happen? Because it definitely looks
to me.Ok, I can imagine that company that conforms to regulations X often does that globally, to simplify their operations. But it definitely is not universal and many global companies can and do handle many different and sometimes even contradictory regulations and corresponding processes. Facebook can do it as well, without affecting their US clients and products.
Of course, that might require strict separation of data. Big deal (again, many other companies do that).
Do I miss something?
Yes, you did.
In the case we're talking about, Google had already censored the newspaper article from search results that it delivered to French customers.
The French court ordered Google to censor the article from search results it delivered to American customers as well. That's a violation of American laws, but the French court isn't bound by American laws.
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I guess I'm not willing to take up arms and liberate you guys over it.
'Murica! You will have freedom even if I have to force it on you!
I thought I was very clear that I was not going to force freedom on anyone.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
And that's a very valid concern.
Unfortunately, it works every which way (US laws aren't made with my consent).
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
And that's a very valid concern.
Unfortunately, it works every which way (US laws aren't made with my consent).
Like I've said a million times, I'm less worried about US law being enforced internationally because US law is based on the correct understanding of rights.
I understand why Europeans feel differently.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
All governments ought to be founded on Scottish Enlightenment principles like "rights preexist government."
I think this is (yet another...) thing on which we'll never agree. You imply that there is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world, and that governments must be judged on this absolute scale. I disagree with that -- or rather, I agree that you might have some such scale, and I have one, but they're not the same, and while both of us think that ours is superior to the other (right vs. wrong), we also have to accept that others have different scales and that trying to force one rather than the other leads to... suboptimal results.
So I'll side with @ixvedeusi here, I don't think this absolute view can lead us anywhere other than calling each other names.
The only possible compromise here is "to each his own", accepting that we both have different principles but that while we still believe ours to be superior we won't try to impose ours on the other (and will refuse to have the other's principles imposed on us!).
to the French court it apparently looked as if Google wasn't covered by freedom of the press as defined by French law (probably b/c I don't think French law actually has a legal principle called like this...).
My understanding of the French ruling and law in this area is that the concept they call "freedom of the press" is much narrower. In France, there's a group called "The Press" that the government is not allowed to interfere with. "The Press" is made up of traditional media companies. Newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and the like.
IANAL (obviously... I hope
) but my understanding is that there isn't really any group called "The Press" anywhere in French law. There are some legal criterion (which mostly revolve around editorial control, I think, as @GOG hinted) that define what is your responsibility when it comes to e.g. libel, defamation or infringements on private life, and I guess that this might be used to define "The Press", but it would very much be a "negative" definition, in that everyone by default has those same responsibilities, except some special categories (such as, wait for it, ISP and websites that do not have editorial control over their content!). There is an overarching "freedom of speech" (with limitations, but it's the same everywhere -- although of course we could discuss which limitations are good or bad) that applies to everyone, individual or group, except to those special categories explicitly built in the law.There is a "press card" but it has no bearing on how the law regards you (IIRC it mostly was created for tax purposes!), although being a member of a "traditional" press group will likely be taken into account by a judge when reaching their verdict in any case, but that's all. There are countless tax and financial and what-not rules that apply to "The Press" and there are very much official definitions for those, but that's not related to what we're talking about, so let's not get there.
There is also a special tribunal (and special procedural rules and so on) for what's called "press offenses" but that's just managing the day-to-day running of the tribunals, and crucially they may be called to judge any offense that falls within their remit, whether it's committed by a member of "The Press" or not (I remember cases where a personal blog was sued in those court).
Because Google's search engine isn't "The Press" by that standard, the French court ruled that Google was not entitled to freedom of the press protections.
Or rather, Google explicitly does the needful to avail themselves of the "no responsibility for content published by someone else on our website" clause of internet-related French law. This means that Google themselves are purposefully saying that they are not acting like a regular entity using their right to free speech, but rather that they are just acting as intermediaries. As such, under French law, Google set themselves apart from all typical press websites.
(not that they really have any choice, given how the law is written, since the only alternative would be to assume editorial control and responsibility for everything that appears on their pages...)
The newspaper that published the original article is a newspaper. They were allowed to keep their archived story online because they are "The Press."
As far as I can see they were allowed to keep it because they were not actually sued. So I don't know what a judge would have said, because I didn't find any such ruling (mind you, maybe I just didn't find it, I searched very quickly, but my point here is that until one of us has read the actual verdict from the court about the newspaper, we don't know even know whether the newspaper was allowed to keep the article, and much less why).
All cases I found (from a quick search, I don't claim to have seen everything) relates to Google (or other similar websites), not newspapers.
Also, in all cases it seems the tribunal had to decide by balancing the privacy (which covers the "right to be forgotten" but also other laws) and the freedom of speech (which is bound by its own laws e.g. defamation...) -- they're not the ones deciding on the law, and once they are set with two conflicting laws, it's their job to find how they balance each other and judge (!) between the two, they're not allowed to say "we don't know
."Meanwhile, a country founded on the fact that "all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" would recognize that Freedom of the Press is supposed to attach to individuals, not groups, and thus that anyone who's publishing something is exercising their Freedom of the Press. (Note, though, that if a group is made up of individuals, those individuals don't lose their rights by joining the group.)
That's actually also how it works in France, but anyway applying US founding principles to France is irrelevant, see above (and below, and...).
- Sure, different countries are based on different moral frameworks, but anyone who uses a different moral framework than me is wrong.
(You're saying the same thing as me here, except that I'm using an emoji.)
See above. Unless you can accept my compromise above, EOT.
- It's absurd to claim people can't criticize foreign court decisions for being morally wrong. Does that extend to domestic courts also?
You can always criticise all you want. But it's absurd to expect a country working on different principles to agree with you. And obviously you can criticise (your) domestic courts since they operate on the same principles as yours (i.e. those of your country), by definition. That you're asking the question shows you haven't understood my point about different things being different.
- The very fact that the French conception of rights is flawed is the reason I don't want it applied in American-to-American transactions. I think it's wrong to apply it in French-to-French transactions as well, but I guess I'm not willing to take up arms and liberate you guys over it.
And for the same reason I don't want American conception of rights to be applied to me (regardless of what I think of French law), but I think we agree on that -- i.e. on the fact that either of us want law that follow our own principles (
again). But I'm not expecting Americans to change their law because I would tell them it's contrary to my principles. Rather, I accept that any change in such law can only come through the mess and rule-of-might that is international law.Bringing in morals or principles in there won't help, and is only muddling the issue.
- Sure, different countries are based on different moral frameworks, but anyone who uses a different moral framework than me is wrong.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
And that's a very valid concern.
Unfortunately, it works every which way (US laws aren't made with my consent).
Like I've said a million times, I'm less worried about US law being enforced internationally because US law is based on the correct understanding of rights.
I understand why Europeans feel differently.
Yes, because while US law's heart is in the right place, it is stupid beyond hope of salvation.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Do I miss something?
Yes, you did.
In the case we're talking about,
Ok, whatever. Could we please talk again about the original case?
Proposal would give EU power to boot tech giants out of European market
Companies could be broken up or forced to sell off European operations.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Ok, whatever. Could we please talk again about the original case?
Or, if possible, show that it is really the same topic.
I am not convinced.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations,
I don't think it's even possible. It's not hard to imagine two or more countries having mutually exclusive yet contradictory standards for regulation.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It’s funny that’s downvoted as it is usually the argument from the right wing garage denizens whenever any right is mentioned, even something as fundamental as the right to live, that any rights only exist because power enforces them.
I have no idea what or who you're talking about.
I'm certainty in favor of the right to life. It bothers me that the US government is not using its power to enforce the right to life.
Just what I said, that rights only become meaningful as society agrees on and enforces them.
I'm not sure what you mean by rights "becoming meaningful." Rights exist independent of society, and you can judge a good government from a bad government by their willingness to protect the peoples' rights.
What do you make of the US government’s unwillingness to protect my right to be forgotten?
You don't have a right to be forgotten.
Who decreed that?
You? The US founding fathers? The same people who decreed every man is created equal, but thenmade the pigs more equal than othersfailed to realize that black people are men too? I don't think they were infallible.Nobody believes you do, not even the French. (If they did, they would have made the newspaper take the story down.)
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Natural laws does not give you the right to have the government force a third party to do something nice on your behalf.
What are natural laws and who is the arbiter of what are and aren't rights under natural law?
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Google's entire schtick is that nothing you read on Google originates with Google. They are no more a "speaker" in the actual First Amendment sense than a print shop (to use press analogies). They cannot be held liable for what you see on Google properties, because they are simply the middle-man between publishers and the audience.
The legal fiction here is that Google aren't speaking, even though they clearly are (in the sense of displaying content to you, the user). If you don't belive this, than I must assume you also believe that it is @apapadimoulis (or rather, his hosting provider) that's speaking to you right now.
The publisher/platform distinction is not material in this case because both publishers and platforms are entitled to Freedom of the Press.
Publisher/platform only matters in terms of assigning liability certain kinds of illegal content, like child porn or libel.
I thought assigning liability was what we were talking about here?
It's assigning liability for content that is illegal.
What Google published was "Here's a webpage that uses the guy's name. If you click on this link, you can go to the website."
The link went to the article on the French newspaper's website.
If the French newspaper article wasn't illegal to publish in the first place (it wasn't), how can the statement "The French Newspaper wrote this article" be illegal?
You said:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
The same court did not make the newspaper take down the article, I'd wager (because that's not how RTBF works).
So there must be some difference between what Google is doing and what the newspaper is doing, as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
My understanding of the case is that the French court has an improper respect for Freedom of the Press. In their conception, Google isn't "the press" and so has fewer rights than the newspaper, which is "the press."
For the publisher/platform distinction to be important, the content itself would need to be illegal regardless of where it was published.
To put this in a more hyperbolic frame, what if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
From an American perspective, Freedom of Press (Speech) has them covered. There is no liability because this is legal speech. Why should I take the French request more seriously. Not to imply that the French are morally the same but both requests hold the same weight to me both legally and morally, even if the motives are vastly different.
You are assuming that Google wasn't actually censoring its results for China?
In fact, I never said that.
[W]hat if instead of France asking to take down a link to some French newspaper article about some rando, the People's Republic of China told Google to take down a link to an article about Tienanmen Square?
Then they jolly well would have, which we know 'coz they did and we know they did.
And? As mentioned, the point was whether US law requires it because the foreign government wants it censored.
No, of course not. Why would it? Nobody gives a flying frisbee about what US law requires.
Huh?
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@dkf said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
If they go with that, then they need to be very clear that they never censor anything for any reason, but can tell you who is the content publisher that you might want to contact about the legality of the said content. But once they start actually censoring stuff or otherwise exercising any form of editorial control, things get tricky legally.
47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction
I'm still doing some research related to President Trump's "Preventing Online Censorship" draft Executive Order, and hope to post more...
(Alas, the other side of the problem is that there are quite a lot of “content publishers” who really do need to be excluded from search results because they are trying to drown out the results that people want with their
; I'm talking about content farms, who want maximum ad revenue without any responsibility to produce things that any ordinary person wants to see.)I'm more concerned with it being used to spread literal propaganda to influence elections. "Fake news" isn't a story you don't like on cable television, it's a completely fabricated political article on a website that's just a potemkin village of a seemingly legitimate news website.
[reply redacted]
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
And that's a very valid concern.
Unfortunately, it works every which way (US laws aren't made with my consent).
Like I've said a million times, I'm less worried about US law being enforced internationally because US law is based on the correct understanding of rights.
I understand why Europeans feel differently.
Yes, because while US law's heart is in the right place, it is stupid beyond hope of salvation.
Yeah, it's one of those, "It's the worst except for everything else" kind of situations, but you gotta do something, eh?
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
[reply redacted]
Fake news. bz always initials his moderation activity.
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
All governments ought to be founded on Scottish Enlightenment principles like "rights preexist government."
I think this is (yet another...) thing on which we'll never agree. You imply that there is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world,
I don't mean to be implying anything, so let me come right out and say it.
There is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world.
I understand that you disagree with that. It's probably not going to stop me from typing shit into this website. Great Commission and all that. But the fact that you and I have this disagreement doesn't mean we're supposed to hate each other or something.
(BTW, I don't think you and I have any other disagreement that obliges us to hate each other either.)
Or rather, Google explicitly does the needful to avail themselves of the "no responsibility for content published by someone else on our website" clause of internet-related French law. This means that Google themselves are purposefully saying that they are not acting like a regular entity using their right to free speech, but rather that they are just acting as intermediaries.
That's not a meaningful distinction under American law, which is why the French court shouldn't be applying it in American-to-American transactions.
As far as I can see they were allowed to keep it because they were not actually sued.
As I understand it (
) a different case had already set the precedent that the French courts weren't supposed to use RTBF to force a newspaper to censor an article, so this guy didn't bother suing them.- Sure, different countries are based on different moral frameworks, but anyone who uses a different moral framework than me is wrong. (You're saying the same thing as me here, except that I'm using an emoji.)
See above. Unless you can accept my compromise above, EOT.
I think I have been accepting your compromise. This is basically what your compromise means, right?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Like I've said a million times, I'm less worried about
USEU law being enforced internationally becauseUSEU law is based on the correct understanding of rights.
I understand whyEuropeansAmericans feel differently.- It's absurd to claim people can't criticize foreign court decisions for being morally wrong. Does that extend to domestic courts also?
You can always criticise all you want. But it's absurd to expect a country working on different principles to agree with you. And obviously you can criticise (your) domestic courts since they operate on the same principles as yours (i.e. those of your country), by definition. That you're asking the question shows you haven't understood my point about different things being different.
Doesn't this fly in the face of your compromise? If Americans feel that X is morally right and EU citizens feel that Y is morally right, should the EU court force Y on American-to-American transactions?
Like I said, I'm not coming to liberate you guys. But what's the EU court doing?
- The very fact that the French conception of rights is flawed is the reason I don't want it applied in American-to-American transactions. I think it's wrong to apply it in French-to-French transactions as well, but I guess I'm not willing to take up arms and liberate you guys over it.
And for the same reason I don't want American conception of rights to be applied to me (regardless of what I think of French law), but I think we agree on that -- i.e. on the fact that either of us want law that follow our own principles (
again)Sounds about right.
But I'm not expecting Americans to change their law because I would tell them it's contrary to my principles.
So you're not coming to liberate us either?
Rather, I accept that any change in such law can only come through the mess and rule-of-might that is international law.
Bringing in morals or principles in there won't help, and is only muddling the issue.
I disagree. The part of your compromise about "we should each go our own way/I understand why Europeans feel differently" is important and is the kind of thing that should have been respected by the French court. If we're each going our own way, after all, we'll never have to resort to the rule of might.
- Sure, different countries are based on different moral frameworks, but anyone who uses a different moral framework than me is wrong.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Me: Wow, this thread has had a lot of activity in the past day.
I'll just jump to the latest page.
Also me: Wow, I don't know what anybody is talking about any more.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
We could pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the structure of the government to make it harder for them to do so if we could get enough of a
pluralitysupermajority.Although a majority is
a plurality, in politics plurality is almost always used to refer to a plurality that is not a majority — more votes than anyone else, but less than half (because there were more than two candidates). And even a majority is not sufficient for a Constitutional amendment; it requires a large supermajority, IIRC 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
And that's a very valid concern.
Unfortunately, it works every which way (US laws aren't made with my consent).
Like I've said a million times, I'm less worried about US law being enforced internationally because US law is based on the correct understanding of rights.
I understand why Europeans feel differently.
Yes, because while US law's heart is in the right place, it is stupid beyond hope of salvation.
Yeah, it's one of those, "It's the worst except for everything else" kind of situations, but you gotta do something, eh?
Except that it isn't.
