201–210 of 249 posts
I've never expected to use a Russian search engine to evade censorship but there we go: https://www.google.com/search?q=datalink+gw1000 https://yandex.ru/search/?text=datalink+gw1000
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.
Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…
it is this difference in definitions of protected speech that causes people from the US to attack Canada for the current state of free speech, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but China would then have a good suspicion that they could coerce Google into doing this
China already has just as much leverage against Google as Canada: do what we say or you can't operate in our country.
Also, it didn't happen without some level of pushback from the American government. Now imagine the drama if China tried to impose their court orders on the US soil that way.
I've never expected to use a Russian search engine to evade censorship but there we go: https://www.google.com/search?q=datalink+gw1000 https://yandex.ru/search/?text=datalink+gw1000
I'm amazed they provide links to other search engines at the bottom of the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Service_for_Supervisio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose limitations apply by Google's TLD. Why don't Google block by geo-IP? If request comes from Canada, on any Google property, apply the filter. If request comes from China, it has nothing to do with Canada, so they should have nothing to complain about. I don't like geofencing, but this court decision is absurd.
Arguably, Canada can complain about whatever they want (according to their laws), that affects a company that hopes to do business in their country. The US prohibits American companies from selling weapons to it's enemies. By your logic, this transaction, which takes place outside of the US, is none of their business. But you had better believe they make it their business. Google is free to tell Canada to shove off..…
> The US prohibits American companies from selling
> weapons...
> The nature of them being an international
> corporation should not mean they are immune
> to everyone's laws.
> International corporations should be required
> to follow all of them.
Can I buy google ads pointing to those blocked websites?
Completely read that wrong. Thought it order google to remove it's own website addresses from search results. that would have been interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose limitations apply by Google's TLD. Why don't Google block by geo-IP? If request comes from Canada, on any Google property, apply the filter. If request comes from China, it has nothing to do with Canada, so they should have nothing to complain about. I don't like geofencing, but this court decision is absurd.
Arguably, Canada can complain about whatever they want (according to their laws), that affects a company that hopes to do business in their country. The US prohibits American companies from selling weapons to it's enemies. By your logic, this transaction, which takes place outside of the US, is none of their business. But you had better believe they make it their business. Google is free to tell Canada to shove off..…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libel and slander laws can only be applied if you know the identity of the person who did it, and have enough money to hire an attorney to go after the person. Right now if you google my name, there's a forum out there that says I'm a child molester based on zero evidence, and the only reason it's up is because I am following my legal requirements as a website operator per the ToU to not release personally identifyin…
> Libel and slander laws can only be applied if you know the identity of the person who did it, and have enough money to hire an attorney to go after the person. The latter part is true, the former part is less so; you can use John/Jane Doe lawsuits and then subpoena third parties to discover the specific identities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims a…
> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person. You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.
Off search engines, not the internet.