Anyone who listens to telco companies is an idiot, and I say that as someone who worked in one for a decade.

Wireless carriers are the worst. You should assume they're crooks until they've proven the opposite.

If the one spreading it is an idiot.

If you do this professionally, you spend time to get a good reputation, you create some secondary sources you can then link to, then hide your actual change in a bigger edit. Then you have a few sockpuppets starting an edit war so that your change gets buried in the history and a second admin account you or a collaborator control swoops in to save the day, restores back to the last "good" edit before the edit war (yours) and locks the page for protection.

We already know from several disasters in the Open Source world, that it's largely an illusion.

The part you miss is the difference between a court order against one particular company and the filtering and censorship of all Internet traffic for all citizens.

Because once you have the filtering/censorship infrastructure in place, it can be easily abused for every other purpose, with no transparency or oversight.

I was just waiting for that to come up, because it was so obvious and clear in your initial response. As if the gender of the judge matters at all to the argument at hand, but I guess when you run out, you grasp at straws. :-)

Re-read 144, 148, 159 of the courts order.

You're a little overzealous there.

Yeah, $19 billion won't pay for the Internet, agreed.

I do still think you underestimate advertisement. I've consulted for a tracking company, for example, and their database is gigantic. The traffic they generate is comperatively small, but we were talking about infrastructure, right? There's a good part of a datacenter right there, used for nothing but tracking. And that's just one company, there's a dozen of those in my city alone.

Of course the Internet as we know it today is heavily commercialized. I never doubted that. My argument is that quite some of that "commerce" is basically incest with no actual value production, thus it doesn't help paying for the maintenance.

Which makes it more dangerous, not less.

I've written a paper on information warfare years ago, and in my research everything points towards generally reliable mediums being the best attack vectors, because you don't fact-check them as carefully as if you know that you can't rely on it.

Small but important changes in an otherwise reliable article are the best way to spread misinformation. If you can do it in an otherwise reliable encyclopedia - perfect.

If I were being paid by someone to distort a specific fact in the public consciousness, Wikipedia is such a perfect vehicle to do just that, it's almost as if it were designed for that purpose.

I think you mis-remember. I did a quick Googling and by that figure, Google spent 7.2 billion on all of its datacenters, globally, in 2013. I would be very surprised if they'd spend 12 times their annual budget on one datacenter all of a sudden. All the news I could find at a glance about datacenter construction was on expanding existing ones and it was usually in the range of 100-250 million.

"Emeral Express" is said to cost 300m, according to this article, not 1 billion.

Think about this for a second: How much less infrastructure would we need if we wouldn't spend 90% of SMTP traffic on spam and half of HTTP traffic on advertisement and tracking?

I disagree. I have quite a few non-geek friends, and from the times this topic came up, my estimate is that their view of Gates is better than mine, but they do understand that MS isn't a company they like and Gates is not exactly a hero.

Wrong, I never had that presumption. But I know judges and how they think (been in court rooms as part of my last job). Their general attitude is that they rule over their jurisdiction and their cases, and that the rest of the world can take care of itself. As such, the judge will rule what he thinks necessary to enforce his order. It's not that he thinks the rest of the world is less important, it's that he thinks the rest of the world can watch out for itself and doesn't need him thinking for them. That's a huge difference.

Are you for real?

Seriously?

You don't need to read an original argument that is one link away and not all that long, because random people on the Internet talk about it and that's all you need to know?

Sorry, my fault. I had mistaken you for someone that one could have a discussion with.

True, he could've, but then we're back in national Internet filters and Big Wall of China territory. Do you really prefer that?

It's not the judges job to determine the technical solution. It would've been Googles job to offer up an alternative.

As I read it, the judge is basically saying: "I want this gone in my jurisdiction, and if you set up your business such that all your other google.* are available in my jurisdiction, you've gotta take it down there as well, because it's not my problem how you set up your business."

And that's the correct answer from a judge. You shouldn't be able to skip past laws just because you've set up your corporate or legal structure in some specific way.

You've missed the point, by about one AE.

The whole issue at hand is when Google is considered to be "in that country" - in fact, this point has been given about 2 pages of discussion in the judges order. Did you even read that?

Same as above, you miss the point. The whole discussion is about when "doing business in that country" applies and when not. Again, the judge gave this ample consideration. Read it, it's not stupid.

I read the court order. I don't think the judge cares if someone in Iran can get the content or not. What I gather is that he's basically saying: "You must not make this content available to Canadians. If your business is set up in such a way that the only way to do that is to remove it globally, then that's your problem because you've decided to set up your business in this way."

to delist of course, sorry.

Because "right to forget" is a specific legal construction that, aside from the small differences of location, jurisdiction and domain, applies to a specific subset of information in specific circumstances following a specific procedure.

This case was about denying easy access to an e-commerce entity that has already been found to be in violation of the law. Where "right to forget" is the equivalent of the law telling people to stop putting up posters saying "John is a child rapist!" ten years after he was acquitted in court, this ruling is the equivalent of telling the phone company to list "Mary's Fine Cocain Emporium" under M in its phone directory.

Uh, not just "fine". That's kinda the elephant in the room. If the judge had references that right and somehow applied it to Canada, then you would have a point. But he doesn't. I stand by my words that mentioning it in the summary was just click-bait, because the submitter knew that it is controversial.

His objective is that law should not become meaningless just because you own two domain names. I'm fairly sure the majority of that part of the 99.5% who know what domain names are would agree to that.

Read the whole reasoning, it's the first link in the summary. He actually thinks this through.