Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#51

Post by sp332 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

s2g wrote: post #46

jpiasetz wrote: post #3

This has already been blocked by a US court https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-court-sides-with-google-aga... so it's in the BC court to get modified.

> threatens free speech on the global internet," wrote Judge Edward Davila of the US District Court for Northern California. Really, pulling listings for a counterfeit product is a free speech issue? That's dumb.

Google initially de-indexed 345 specific webpages associated with Datalink on google.ca.

Equustek then sought an injunction to stop Google from displaying any part of the Datalink websites on any of its search results worldwide.

Google already agreed to pull the listings. It's when they wanted the whole website removed that they pushed back.

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#52

Post by ksk » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

eviltandem wrote: post #48

ksk wrote: post #10

Its interesting that Google is making a 'freedom of expression' argument when they themselves heavily censor YouTube content. Google controls the platform their users use, and the Government controls the 'platform' that both companies and users use. I suppose nobody cares about the users in both cases.

Google is allowed to host or not whatever they want. They can do it wherever they want. They are not a government. A government somewhere telling Google what they have to do globally? That's scary/stupid.

Actually, they are not allowed to do whatever they want. Nobody is, but okay, believe that if you may.

>A government somewhere telling Google what they have to do globally?

If Google had individual companies in individual countries, with no data (Google's property) being shared, you might have a point. Its a bit more complicated than you make it sound.

> That's scary/stupid

I believe that things seem less scary or stupid if you take the time to understand them.

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#53

Post by endangered » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

hunter23 wrote: post #45

mattsfrey wrote: post #4

This needs to be rejected whole sale. One nation does NOT have the authority to dictate what a company can do outside of it's borders and concerns. The censorship issues that have been cropping up lately in these regards are appalling. The "hate speech" legislature of many EU nations comes to mind. If that insanity were to be enforced "world wide" it's seriously time for new service providers to step up that aren't s…

I think it's actually quite common for a country to dictate what it's citizens and companies can do outside of its borders. For example, * A US company can be prosecuted on corruption charges if it bribes an official out of its borders. This is even if what they do is not considered bribery in the country itself; you are bound to the US law even when you are doing business outside of it. The US has used this approach…

* That is a US company

* The ban affects US companies

* The taxes affect US citizens

* The laws affect US citizens

This has nothing to do with this decision.

What Canada is aiming to do is to force a non-Canadian company to follow Canadian law even if it does not operate at all in Canada.

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#54

Post by lovich » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

endangered wrote: post #53

hunter23 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's actually quite common for a country to dictate what it's citizens and companies can do outside of its borders. For example, * A US company can be prosecuted on corruption charges if it bribes an official out of its borders. This is even if what they do is not considered bribery in the country itself; you are bound to the US law even when you are doing business outside of it. The US has used this approach…

* That is a US company * The ban affects US companies * The taxes affect US citizens * The laws affect US citizens This has nothing to do with this decision. What Canada is aiming to do is to force a non-Canadian company to follow Canadian law even if it does not operate at all in Canada.

It's interacting with Canadian citizenship and being paid by Canadian companies for advertising.

If it's literally doing no operations inside of Canada then they have nothing to worry about because Canada couldn't do anything to them.

Its pretty hypocritical of companies to rely on local laws to protect them but then act like all their customers on the internet don't exist in any real space and aren't under a nation states juridisction.

I'd prefer a completely free internet, but you don't get to have it both ways

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#55

Post by tgragnato » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #50

izacus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does that mean that we should punish Google when it pulls our YouTube video due to trademark concerns valid only inside US and videos with pro-Russian, pro-Chinese, pro-ISIS political slant? Or does this your idea only work for US cultural norms? Should we then start processes of getting Google out of EU, Asia? After all, a media service who distributes illegal content inside your borders, spreads US propaganda, b…

> Or does this your idea only work for US cultural norms? Always these false equivalences, every time. I can count on it. In this case, I'm sure GP thinks as I do, that no US court should be able to tell a company what to take down elsewhere in the world. That Google chooses to is another matter. Please please, can we stop trying to deflect the real issue with these whataboutisms?

In this particular case, the whole thing is probably more complicated than what it seems: it's not entirely clear that Google chooses to is another matter.

As a reference: "The Digital Disruption - Connectivity and the Diffusion of Power" by Eric Schmidt & Jared Cohen [http://archive.is/R13l2]

In the past people interpreted the article as "US companies control a large proportion of the internet infrastructure, the government can use this as a foreign policy tool". If you're a foreigner this may not sound cool..

It is natural for a company that maintains complex and entrenched relationships with a government, to influence and being influenced, at home and abroad.

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#56

Post by kodablah » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

tgragnato wrote: post #55

kodablah wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or does this your idea only work for US cultural norms? Always these false equivalences, every time. I can count on it. In this case, I'm sure GP thinks as I do, that no US court should be able to tell a company what to take down elsewhere in the world. That Google chooses to is another matter. Please please, can we stop trying to deflect the real issue with these whataboutisms?

In this particular case, the whole thing is probably more complicated than what it seems: it's not entirely clear that Google chooses to is another matter. As a reference: "The Digital Disruption - Connectivity and the Diffusion of Power" by Eric Schmidt & Jared Cohen [ http://archive.is/R13l2 ] In the past people interpreted the article as "US companies control a large proportion of the internet infrastructure, the…

Sure. But that doesn't change the common moral stance that one has of "X government should not be able to force a company to do things outside of X's jurisdiction" for any values of X, even if that is at odds with what currently happens today. And some people's morals may extend the quote to "if company is not headquartered in X" or "if company does not do business in X" or whatever they may think. But the conversation on the morals themselves cannot be had if all we do is replace values of X for three reasons: 1) it assumes people have inconsistent morals, and 2) no two situations are the same and 3) the conversation is diluted.

To your broader point about US internet hegemony and government influence, I think it doesn't sound cool to many regardless of where they reside. If we must draw equivalence for history's sake here, one could look at the dissemination of culture over and over again and protectionist measures by the encroached upon in order to retain power, often against the will of the citizens. Over time, people will do what they want, in the meantime all most want is those with power to limit themselves. It also has value to recognize the environments that foster these cultural innovations and fight fire with fire instead of power.

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#57

Post by hunter23 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

endangered wrote: post #53

hunter23 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's actually quite common for a country to dictate what it's citizens and companies can do outside of its borders. For example, * A US company can be prosecuted on corruption charges if it bribes an official out of its borders. This is even if what they do is not considered bribery in the country itself; you are bound to the US law even when you are doing business outside of it. The US has used this approach…

* That is a US company * The ban affects US companies * The taxes affect US citizens * The laws affect US citizens This has nothing to do with this decision. What Canada is aiming to do is to force a non-Canadian company to follow Canadian law even if it does not operate at all in Canada.

Just to be clear I was responding to the OP's statement "One nation does NOT have the authority to dictate what a company can do outside of it's borders and concerns". This is incorrect - a nation regularly forms laws on what its companies and citizens can do outside of its borders and concerns.

Now what you are staying is something completely different from the OPs argument - you are stating "Google is not a Canadian entity so neither Op's or my arguments matter". I am not a legal expert so I have no idea but the statement that Google "does not operate at all in Canada" seems misleading as I know that Google has offices based in Canada. They have Canadian citizens working in Canadian offices under a registered entity so I am not sure why you are saying that Google "does not operate at all in Canada".

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#58

Post by tgragnato » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #56

tgragnato wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case, the whole thing is probably more complicated than what it seems: it's not entirely clear that Google chooses to is another matter. As a reference: "The Digital Disruption - Connectivity and the Diffusion of Power" by Eric Schmidt & Jared Cohen [ http://archive.is/R13l2 ] In the past people interpreted the article as "US companies control a large proportion of the internet infrastructure, the…

Sure. But that doesn't change the common moral stance that one has of "X government should not be able to force a company to do things outside of X's jurisdiction" for any values of X, even if that is at odds with what currently happens today. And some people's morals may extend the quote to "if company is not headquartered in X" or "if company does not do business in X" or whatever they may think. But the conversati…

I agree on the ideal of extra jurisdictional non-interference, but I consider it an ideal. Realistically, a global intercommunication network involves risks. Risks that people should have the chance to manage.

When companies and governments take away the freedom of self-determination from people, then the question becomes more complex.

This is why, despite agreeing with the moral stance, I believe that Google has been put in a difficult position, and do not need a priori defence.

Freedom of information is an important issue, but I prefer to turn my attention to less controversial actors.

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#59

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #54

endangered wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* That is a US company * The ban affects US companies * The taxes affect US citizens * The laws affect US citizens This has nothing to do with this decision. What Canada is aiming to do is to force a non-Canadian company to follow Canadian law even if it does not operate at all in Canada.

It's interacting with Canadian citizenship and being paid by Canadian companies for advertising. If it's literally doing no operations inside of Canada then they have nothing to worry about because Canada couldn't do anything to them. Its pretty hypocritical of companies to rely on local laws to protect them but then act like all their customers on the internet don't exist in any real space and aren't under a nation…

[deleted]

Re: Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules

#60

Post by PowerRangError » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #50

izacus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does that mean that we should punish Google when it pulls our YouTube video due to trademark concerns valid only inside US and videos with pro-Russian, pro-Chinese, pro-ISIS political slant? Or does this your idea only work for US cultural norms? Should we then start processes of getting Google out of EU, Asia? After all, a media service who distributes illegal content inside your borders, spreads US propaganda, b…

> Or does this your idea only work for US cultural norms? Always these false equivalences, every time. I can count on it. In this case, I'm sure GP thinks as I do, that no US court should be able to tell a company what to take down elsewhere in the world. That Google chooses to is another matter. Please please, can we stop trying to deflect the real issue with these whataboutisms?

>> > Or does this your idea only work for US cultural norms?

> Always these false equivalences, every time

That wasn't a false equivalence, so you have a problem seeing phantoms you want to see. The real issue stands. Perfect bidirectional parity is not practical, especially with a unidirectional decision. The Canadian SJW culture (born of their multicultural norms) is so pervasively ingrained that they confuse equality of outcome as moral righteousness. With the unfortunate tendency to ignore the possible pernicious consequences of these policies, you get what you get. Holding a company to an impractical standard is a great way to push them out of the market.