which is fine. but we're talking about the law of sovereign countries

you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already?

that's just corporate life

the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws

of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are limited, narrow, and up for constant review. that's fine too. nothing's perfect

but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be

we have different definitions of what is better and right then

there is no "rule by rumor". there are indeed weak minded and weak willed gossip victims who will judge people based on rumors. which will always exist. the proper response is to disregard such individuals. don't date someone who would judge you based on teenaged hijinks or don't work for a company that judges you based on nude pictures released against your authorization

the proper response to such weak individuals is to sue them because their "judgment" is invalid. of course you can't sue someone who doesn't want to date you (in fact, they are doing you a favor by removing themselves from consideration after judging you for stupid crap), but you can bring action against the company that wouldn't hire you for example for unsubstantiated crap

what is definitely not better or right, but you seem to support, is to elevate venomous gossip hounds to protected status, that their "judgments" have power and respect. for example, the vicious woman who would judge you and drop you because of something stupid you did as a teenager is now *NOT* removed from your dating pool, and you wind up dating or marrying them. now your life is hell. or you work for a petty vindictive and overly judgmental shallow boss. you've removed the real protection from such vile people by protecting their weak and invalid judgments, by giving them power and authority and saying you have to hide and run in shame about the foibles that are in everyone's life. rather than simply defying their cruel bullshit and disregarding or rejecting their presence in your life

why are you laughing? you're saying that a foreign government's request to censor news information about individuals ("right to be forgotten") will be legally enforceable in the USA. this is a different topic than sharing music or movies

if you don't understand the topic, don't comment on it

please define how i am trolling, dear anonymous coward making a personal attack (the actual trolling here). justify your accusation

you mean: for any reason which violates the principle of free speech

now we have to make sure you understand what free speech means:

1. brain dead "anything that can ever be said is ok and is fair game"

2. free speech as limited by forms of speech that impinge on other basic freedoms (threats to murder, child porn, the proverbial shout of "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)

all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms. your freedom is most frequently violated by morons around you, not big bad evil government out to destroy your freedom for shits and giggles like a cartoon villain (this doesn't excuse government free speech violations, it only puts it in context of the topic in this comment)

examples of freedoms in tension: my freedom to listen at music at 2 AM, your freedom to get a good night's sleep. your freedom to drive as fast as you want, my freedom not to die in a car crash. your freedom to take a piss right now, my freedom to grow petunias in my front yard

so now, once we have graduated from the airhead immature teenaged definition of freedom "i can do whatever the fuck i want, be damned the consequences," and we understand that true freedom means "i can do whatever the fuck i want, as long as i don't limit other people's freedoms" then we have a logically coherent and valid definition of free speech: speech which does not hurt other people's freedoms (incitement to murder, child porn, "fire" in theatre, etc.)

meanwhile, if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you simply do not understand what freedom or free speech is

you really don't. i am being 100% serious

if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you're playing with a simpleton's teenaged immature definition of freedom that is invalid and only marks you as a clueless idiot or a malicious douchebag

you completely miss the point

laws exist with philosophical and moral validity, like against murder, and without philosophical and moral validity, like against marijuana

history is replete with people disobeying stupid and useless laws, and forcing change. civil disobedience. just because a law exists you blindly follow it without thought?

"Well, the creeper took nude pics of me walking around home naked and posted them on the internet. I was pissed until I realized that information just wants to be free, so like whatever."

no: you sue the creeper asshole into oblivion and/ or have them arrested and thrown into jail. that's the solution. just like i said above. you completely misrepresent my point, you don't understand my point, or you replied without even reading it!

furthermore, yeah: the photos are out there. the genie is out of bottle. you can't put it back. just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can change reality. i don't like the fact i will die someday. can i pass a law against death and that solves the problem? you want to snap your fingers and magic happens? tell me: how do you catch all the copies of a picture that has gone viral on the internet. explain to me how you do that

you don't. you can't. i'm not happy about this, i merely understand reality. you either think i'm happy about that ugly truth or you think i'm saying you can't do anything about it (you can: punish the creeper). what you are doing is shooting the messenger because i am telling you an ugly truth and you don't like the ugly truth. that's fine, you don't have to like it. but you shouldn't be angry at me for simply explaining reality to you

did you read my allegory? if i break your leg, do you:

1. arrest/ sue me

2. snap your fingers and make your leg magically not broken

there are laws against murder for example. do the laws say:

1. punish murderers

2. make murdered people magically brought back to life

figure it out

France did try building a Grand mur de la France once, of course, but then the Germans just went around it. Google search results are already filtered in France as needed to comply with French law, but France seems to be upset here that the Germans (or French with a VPN) are getting around it. Somehow, I don't think they'll learn this time, either.

I'm pretty sure this was arrogance, but not malice, on MS's part: they really want to shift the IE userbase to Edge and drop IE support in some future release. Can you blame them? But in their arrogance they didn't remember (or didn't care) that quite a large portion of Windows users don't run IE in the first place.

The Chrome UI has annoted me from the start, and I trust Google about as far as I can throw their corporate HQ, but Chrome still has some neat tech.

Anyone know? Is there a chromium fork with a different UI, as Pale Moon is to FF?

you believe espionage will go away someday? how or why?

the desire to know information someone else is hiding will pretty much always exist as long as human nature exists

You might not think it is going to happen, but you don't know.

I do know: the French can't pass a law that censors information in the USA. It's not going to happen. Ever. I will bet my life on that.

In fact Google today DOES censor results WORLDWIDE (like child porn).

Which they should do, and is a completely unrelated topic.

1. that's never going to happen

2. i'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical bankruptcy of the concept behind the law?

in which case, i apologize: i did not know you had conversation topic authority here. or maybe you don't and you should try contributing to the topic or ignoring my comment. but acting like you're my father just tells us you are probably compensating for some social deficit in real life, and that i want to borrow your car keys. your comment is without merit

Wasn't the ability for other browsers to set themselves as the default browser part of the DoJ settlement? So now Microsoft is deciding that doesn't apply?

Sorry, but Microsoft has gone well into the "we can do anything we want to your computer, any time we want, and unless you have an enterprise license you can't stop us".

That is complete bullshit. If they're going to assert ownership of my computer, they can help me pay for it. Until they do, it's my computer.

So basically they're doing the same thing with Windows 10 as they did originally with IE? Making it part of the OS and claiming it can't be removed?

Sorry, Microsoft ... but everything I hear about Windows 10 is making me say "fuck you, I'll stick with my Windows 8.1".

When will Microsoft realize we own the computers, we are ultimately the ones who make decisions about the computers, and they simply can't dictate to us what software is on our computers and how we use it.

And, like every other Microsoft product, I'm sure this new hotness is riddled with security holes an defects for their users to have to deal with.

But don't worry, because they'll update the OS as they see fit, and if they break it, that's your problem ... says it right there in the EULA.

Keep alienating your customers, see how that works out for you. You might even find the DoJ knocking at your door if they ever grow a pair and stop doing whatever industry demands of them.

it is a feel-good, empty band aid law for technologically illiterate people

1. you can easily circumvent it by accessing google with a vpn in another country, which is second nature for anyone vaguely aware. if that employer or possible date looks you up, it takes 15 seconds more effort. they will do it. they won't blindly accept and abide by the censorial coddling of the EU like good little citizens

2. any employer or date who will disregard you for stupid shit you did as a teenager is no one you want to date/ work for anyway. furthermore, those employers/ dates actually do have a right to know your sordid background if you are hiding actual real evil shit you once did

but the real problem is the philosophical concept behind the law

there is no such thing as a "right to be forgotten." this is not "information wants to be free dude" half bakes philosophical sophistry. this is the basic concept of reality that you can't control information. once it gets out there, it's out there, no take backs. so be careful who you tell your private shit. even if someone betrays your confidence, or records you without your authorization, you don't get to magically erase public information. what you do is sue or prosecute the person who wronged you

allegory:

if i push you out a window, you should have me arrested and jailed for assault. but what you can't do is go "pushing me out a window was wrong, so magically i want it to be like i never got pushed out a window and my leg broke" (*POOF* leg magically heals). reality does not work that way. and that's the same idiocy behind "right to be forgotten" magic unicorn wipe public information law