surprising eu ruling on google search history

Page: 1, 2, 3
Online now: Majestic-12 [Bot]
Post Reply
Books get removed from libraries from time to time so their card catalogue should be removed as well. Authors and publishers may not want books in libraries, and that's their call. Censorship?
maurvir Perfectly balanced - mostly
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
Books get removed from libraries from time to time so their card catalogue should be removed as well. Authors and publishers may not want books in libraries, and that's their call. Censorship?


Books get removed from libraries because they are either out of date, or there isn't enough room to justify a book that isn't in demand. Publishers and authors don't get to dictate squat to libraries.

Also, this is exactly censorship. The government, in its official capacity, is demanding certain speech be restricted or eliminated. Sure, it may be at the behest of embarrassed Europeans, but it is the force of law that makes it an issue.

Quote:
cen·sor·ship
ˈsensərˌSHip/
noun
noun: censorship

the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

If demand can dictate access to information, and is that censorship derived from the tyranny of the marketplace? Is a market-based denial of information acceptable?

Might a search engine's algorithm create conditions equal to censorship? Is that a tyranny?
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
maurvir posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?


nope

because we see google differently

It is disingenuous to say this is about Google and you know that very well.
But you are right, it seems discussion is pointless and all that is left is to use the political process to stand opposed to this and other efforts to sanitize the information available.
I am sure the former board members of Enron cannot wait for this to come to North America.


it's not disingenuous in the least

i consider google search results to be equivalent to broadcast media, and i don't believe that the personal details of everyone's lives should be spewed out to the universe

presumably you view google as more of a library, one that should be open to all -- and editing results are akin to burning books or something


Google isn't even a library - it's more akin to a ridiculously large card catalog. (for those old enough to remember those...)

Image

Except it's computerized and programmed to help you find things similar to what you asked for.

I can see requiring Google to pull indexes for false or libelous information, but I don't think they should be required to pull indexes for accurate information, except under special circumstances. Specifically, if the information is likely to cause real physical harm to someone.

Yes, this.


yeah, like i said -- we see google differently

but courts are increasingly seeing it my way

in a few years i expect to see far less personal information on google -- and anonymity will be harder to come by too
The fact that some information ends up on the internet does not mean people are necessarily entitled to it. The fact that search algorithms exist to find information doesn't mean people are entitled to it. The cries of censorship in this case are overblown because of a mistaken belief of entitlement.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
The fact that some information ends up on the internet does not mean people are necessarily entitled to it. The fact that search algorithms exist to find information doesn't mean people are entitled to it. The cries of censorship in this case are overblown because of a mistaken belief of entitlement.

Bull human waste.
In the modern era search engines are critical for access to information. Without robust indexing services all the information on the web is essentially useless.
A search engine changing it's algorithm to lower the ranking of things like local newspaper articles over 5 years old is not censorship in the way removing mention of a specific article is.
Governments should not intervene on behalf of people who did things they regret and want to retroactively purge the truth about their actions. Ordering the removal of specific search results is exactly the same thing as ordering the removal of index cards from an analogue indexing system.
When my local newspaper finally gets around to publishing the index of their archives online should I have a right to demand that articles about my arrest for distribution of obscene materials be removed? I cannot demand they remove things related to me from their analogue system, why does "doing it with a computer" make any difference?
TOS
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
The fact that some information ends up on the internet does not mean people are necessarily entitled to it. The fact that search algorithms exist to find information doesn't mean people are entitled to it. The cries of censorship in this case are overblown because of a mistaken belief of entitlement.


note: you're dealing with fundamentalism here
A search engine isn't a newspaper. Google will not be required to edit or censer original articles. It will only be required to remove certain search results. This may or may not make the original item unreachable, but access to the internet is not a right anyway. There's all kinds of documents that are unreachable, for all kinds of reasons; security, privacy, editorial judgement, legal status, ownership, laziness, honest error etc.
ukimalefu Wasn't me
User avatar
Make internet access a right (make denying access a serious crime) and then take search engines out of private hands and/or create a worldwide consortium sanctioned by international agreement and enforced through regular audits, then we can speak of censorship and the importance of maintaining search results.
TOS
User avatar
if it exists, it should be accessible by googling someone's name

that apparently is the argument

things were never like that in the entire history of the human race but apparently it's normal
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
The argument is that if something exists Google should be free to index it and isn't responsible for removing things that bother people from the index.

Basically, if a person is free to find it there's no reason Google shouldn't be free to index it.

That's how Google works. It does nothing but automatically indexing data that it finds.

Regulating it as the EU demands is taking something passive and demanding that it instead be active. Like "Well I'm sorry that that one page had something on it that bothered you and that it was copied to 52 billion other web pages but it shouldn't be Google's responsibility to go through those 52 billion pages and find the ones which contain that information and actively remove it specifically for the fact that you don't like it. That's a huge obstacle and shouldn't be Google's responsibility."
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The argument is that if something exists Google should be free to index it and isn't responsible for removing things that bother people from the index.

Basically, if a person is free to find it there's no reason Google shouldn't be free to index it.

That's how Google works. It does nothing but automatically indexing data that it finds.

Regulating it as the EU demands is taking something passive and demanding that it instead be active. Like "Well I'm sorry that that one page had something on it that bothered you and that it was copied to 52 billion other web pages but it shouldn't be Google's responsibility to go through those 52 billion pages and find the ones which contain that information and actively remove it specifically for the fact that you don't like it. That's a huge obstacle and shouldn't be Google's responsibility."

I agree but am getting wasted off this is being discussed as if it were just about Google. If the principle stands other indexes are at risk too. The right to be forgotten strikes right at the heart of the many companies that offer public records searches as a prime example.
The right to be forgotten is a principle which if accepted will mean no index will be safe from government intrusion. How wonderful for the elites to have at their fingertips the ability to hide all manner of facts from the public all the while being able to deny employing censorship.
TOS dismisses me as a fundamentalist but I will wear that label proudly. Freedom of speech and the freedom to hear someone else's speech is the very cornerstone of a free society and once free speech goes everything goes. The first thing any tyrant does is not take away people's guns, they take control of the means of communication, then they do other stuff but job number one of controlling a society is locking down the free exchange of ideas.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
They want the people to have guns to supply the brownshirts.
TOS
User avatar
i just don't understand the inability to see the difference between personal records which have always and reasonably been private and the "elites" hiding information

every right has limits, every single one -- it's just the way life is

nowhere is it written that you have the right to find out if i committed crimes as a kid or had a bankruptcy or got mentioned in some news story or whatever
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
i just don't understand the inability to see the difference between personal records which have always and reasonably been private and the "elites" hiding information

every right has limits, every single one -- it's just the way life is

nowhere is it written that you have the right to find out if i committed crimes as a kid or had a bankruptcy or got mentioned in some news story or whatever

This is not about personal records, it is about a public record. You need to review the case that started all this. It was about a bankruptcy, that is a public act which produces a public record.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
i just don't understand the inability to see the difference between personal records which have always and reasonably been private and the "elites" hiding information

every right has limits, every single one -- it's just the way life is

nowhere is it written that you have the right to find out if i committed crimes as a kid or had a bankruptcy or got mentioned in some news story or whatever

This is not about personal records, it is about a public record. You need to review the case that started all this. It was about a bankruptcy, that is a public act which produces a public record.


actually it was a home repossession

which constitutional right demands that stuff like this must show up in google searches of a person's name?

i'm just baffled that you consider this a free speech issue, it makes zero sense to me

taking it off a google search is not hiding it, or preventing it from being found, so it's not stifling speech (if things like this can even be considered speech)
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
i just don't understand the inability to see the difference between personal records which have always and reasonably been private and the "elites" hiding information

every right has limits, every single one -- it's just the way life is

nowhere is it written that you have the right to find out if i committed crimes as a kid or had a bankruptcy or got mentioned in some news story or whatever

This is not about personal records, it is about a public record. You need to review the case that started all this. It was about a bankruptcy, that is a public act which produces a public record.


actually it was a home repossession

which constitutional right demands that stuff like this must show up in google searches of a person's name?

i'm just baffled that you consider this a free speech issue, it makes zero sense to me

taking it off a google search is not hiding it, or preventing it from being found, so it's not stifling speech (if things like this can even be considered speech)

Again, this is not about just Google, you are smart enough to absorb that idea I don't understand your obtuseness.
You really cannot wrap your mind around the idea that government imposed censorship of specific search results is quite different than an index making changes to their algorithm that alter search rankings?
I am not saying I have a right to any specific information in an index search but a right I believe I have is that the results I get are not determined by government imposition.
I must reiterate again that in every practical sense, purging a result from indexes is exactly the same thing as destroying the information. Without reasonably accurate indexing the billions of pages with trillions of facts are just a big, useless mass. Imagine a vast library that people rely on for information, now imagine that library removes it's index system and randomizes the placement of books on shelves. Your argument would be that nothing has changed, all the books are still there, nothing has been censored so what's the problem? While the reality is that this once great resource is now useless.
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
With each search, Google is speaking, saying "Here is the information I found when reading the information published (spoken) and publicly available from this other source--and here is said other source."

Google is not itself publishing the content it is being ordered to censor, so it should not be the one ordered to censor it.
TOS
User avatar
theedgeofoblivious posted:
With each search, Google is speaking, saying "Here is the information I found when reading the information published (spoken) and publicly available from this other source--and here is said other source."

Google is not itself publishing the content it is being ordered to censor, so it should not be the one ordered to censor it.


google is not the only way to access this information; google is simply a major method for getting it distributed to the world

removing it from google indices in no way hides or censors the information

there's no problem here
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.
TOS
User avatar
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?
No.

Google finding the site and when asked for them going "Yup, I found these just sitting [right here in the location where this link points]," is.
I think the two words making up the expression "free speech" have been bastardised by the culture of entitlement so much that people embracing this so called freedom must find it very difficult to operate in the real-world where rights are weighed. It is the weighing of rights and freedom that preserves their meaning and it is Orwellian abuse that threatens.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
I think the two words making up the expression "free speech" have been bastardised by the culture of entitlement so much that people embracing this so called freedom must find it very difficult to operate in the real-world where rights are weighed. It is the weighing of rights and freedom that preserves their meaning and it is Orwellian abuse that threatens.

It's like you have only recently discovered the word "entitlement" and are really excited about using it. Kinda like the way I was when I was 4 and learned the word "butt".
TOS
User avatar
heh ... "butt"
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really

I have issues with Google. I have far greater issues with government coerced censorship.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really

I have issues with Google. I have far greater issues with government coerced censorship.


but what if this issue is actually about google's privacy issues rather than censorship?
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really

I have issues with Google. I have far greater issues with government coerced censorship.


but what if this issue is actually about google's privacy issues rather than censorship?

It is not about Google at all.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really

I have issues with Google. I have far greater issues with government coerced censorship.


but what if this issue is actually about google's privacy issues rather than censorship?

It is not about Google at all.


keep telling yourself that, you might actually end up believing it
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really

I have issues with Google. I have far greater issues with government coerced censorship.


but what if this issue is actually about google's privacy issues rather than censorship?

It is not about Google at all.


keep telling yourself that, you might actually end up believing it

Wow, you really have your head buried in the sand on this issue. It is about Google now simply because Google has a practical monopoly in the EU. But if this "right" is accepted as a principle it will apply to any index that might rise in the future.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
theedgeofoblivious posted:
The question isn't about whether it censors the ability for a thought to get out into the world.

The question is whether it censors an entity's freedom of speech(in this case not even something active, but just a log of information that was collected). There is no question that it does.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the ability of a thought to be expressed. It has to do with the right of the one expressing it to participate in its expression.


archived foreclosure records are a person participating in the expression of a thought?

Here where we actually have free speech as a right, unlike you common market heathens, an aspect of that right is the right of access to speech and speech is very, very very broadly defined.


but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really

I have issues with Google. I have far greater issues with government coerced censorship.


but what if this issue is actually about google's privacy issues rather than censorship?

It is not about Google at all.


keep telling yourself that, you might actually end up believing it

Wow, you really have your head buried in the sand on this issue. It is about Google now simply because Google has a practical monopoly in the EU. But if this "right" is accepted as a principle it will apply to any index that might rise in the future.


so you mean things will be the way they are without google, namely public records are still available, just not via google?

man what a terrible nightmare that would be
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
So you mean that Google isn't responsible for those records being publicly accessible?

I guess it doesn't make sense to bother legislating Google after all.
Old Yoda agitator
User avatar
First they came for Google, and I did not speak out—
Because I don't use Google.

Then they came for Bing, and I did not speak out—
Because I'm not fond of Bing.

Then they came for Wolfram Alpha, and I did not speak out—
Because I prefer Beta.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
TOS
User avatar
/godwin

fundamentalists always revert to the hitler talk

not much left to say really
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
Actually I'm pretty sure the Nazis really did come for OldYoda at one point.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
TOS posted:
but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really


If there's a problem with certain types of publicly available records being searchable by google, perhaps we would be better served by determining if there's a problem with them being public at all, rather than jumping to rather vague and dubious censorship of a distribution medium.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
jkahless posted:
TOS posted:
but those records are still available and accessible, they're just not being forced into a person's brand

you don't seem to see the circular logic in your argument ... that just because it shows up in a google search it should be treated as speech; but in theory there's no limit to what could show up in a google search if we let it ... and it's kind of funny because i happen to know that you have a major distrust of that company due to privacy issues

rather ironic really


If there's a problem with certain types of publicly available records being searchable by google, perhaps we would be better served by determining if there's a problem with them being public at all, rather than jumping to rather vague and dubious censorship of a distribution medium.

The whole point of the right to be forgotten is that governments will be able to censor the web while maintaining a level deniability that is important to governments who want to avoid the charges of censorship that would come from direct censorship.
A controlled and censored web that governments and people like TOS will pretend is not censored and controlled.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

surprising eu ruling on google search history

Page: 1, 2, 3