101–110 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is that someone who has 50 applications on his table and wants to invite 5-10 for an interview for 1 position is looking for easy ways to narrow them down.
And over time society will recognise that prejudging applicants based on irrelevant crap unearthed on the Internet isn't the best business strategy, so the original problem diminishes.
Reality check. Look at the prevalence of tattoos. Think that the prejudice against that has diminished? As far as I can tell, it's gotten worse.
Before, tattoos were sufficiently rare that if somebody had one who was applying for a job where they were unusual, they generally were given the benefit of the doubt (ex-serviceman, gang member who got out, etc.).
Now, they're so common that they're used as a proxy for "lower socioeconomic status" and all the discrimination that comes with that.
Should Google try to interpret the ruling as closely as possible, only blocking the most clearly irrelevant information, and honoring requests for appeals from journalists whenever possible? That would limit damage to those seeking information, but risk another turn at the courts. Or should they just implement it as broadly and bluntly as possible, lowering their risk of noncompliance, reducing their costs of evaluat…
There should be a name for deliberately making a big fuss of following every regulation as expansively as possible to prove a point; inverse civil disobedience, civil obedience maybe?
The EU really is a joke. I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid.
> I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid. The difficulty with following that logic is in the blurry middle area. Where is the line drawn and who makes that decision?
Then we just end up back in the previous situation where you had to get the site that posted the content to remove it, which had a fairly well defined set of requirements. And tada! Just like that there's no problem anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record. Many governments would hide such a record after a certain time. There seems to be a simpler way to accomplish this than the current EU approach: a name change. It seems much easier to have an individual change his or her identity than to have the whole of society collectively agree to not as…
A name change is not simple, particularly if you are a bit further along in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those aren't great examples -- it's pretty rare to get taken down for simply reporting on IP issues. You can get taken down for distributing someone else's copyrighted content, but I have yet to see the government go after someone for simple journalism. The closest we've gotten to that was the Dajaz1 domain name seizure, but that was because they served up actual copyrighted songs (though arguably with authorization)…
Reporting facts themselves can sometimes be an IP issue in the US due to the "Hot News" doctrine.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/hot-news-doctrine-surv...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So long as you're not reporting on matters of "national security", the U.S. actually has a decent track record with that ...
Yes, but the problem is that what is a "matter of national security" in practice is whatever the government says it is. So this exception is enough to effectively eviscerate the freedom of the press.
Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The worst thing we have here is cozy relationships between the media and the government, but alternative news sources are available everywhere and Americans are relying on them more than ever.