61–69 of 69 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does a new search engine complying with existing laws impact "freedom" (a nebulous concept) in any meaningful way?
How does equating rationality with profit-maximization further this discussion in any meaningful way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you're pointing to a definition of "free" that doesn't include exceptions for incitement, classified information, etc. It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.
> It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world. Reference? Why is it unworkable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't hardly overestimate something I didn't make an estimation of.
Oh FFS. >Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term You did type this, yes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh FFS. >Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term You did type this, yes?
Yes. Where is the amount, extent, position, size, or value of the pressure exerted on China, that I estimated too highly?
I'm going to guess this is more about Germany than it is about China In Germany, Nazi propaganda is illegal. This leaves Twitter with three options when dealing with a user who posts Nazi propaganda: 1. Leave it up, in violation of German law. 2. Delete the user's tweet, even though it is legal in most countries (and blocking it is a violation of the principle of free speech) 3. Block it only in Germany, and make it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Where is the amount, extent, position, size, or value of the pressure exerted on China, that I estimated too highly?
The fact that there is any pressure whatsoever. Of all the countries in the world, China is the most able (from an economic and political standpoint) to tell a western company to take their service and shove it.
I vote that every single law is trashed and new laws are written completely from scratch. Based on universial human rights. Without discriminating anyone without a valid reason (e.g. the person is not aware of risks causing by this or that action)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a violation in the moral sense, depending of course in your morals. Twitter's image involves the protection if free speech, so it's problematic for them.
It's only a violation in so far as its less of a violation to a persons free speech than blocking the whole service. Users can be creative with what they want to express with this approach - with no Twitter at all, where is the wiggle room?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world. Reference? Why is it unworkable?
You somehow expect a world without any secrets of any kind to function?
(Not only that, you seem to accept that governments lying is fine, but exposing those lies is a violation of free speech...???)