Exactly.

I've been asked to sign up to Google+ for one reason or another a few times (and refused) and been signed up without being asked another few times. No promises, but the next time that happens I might not bother to delete the account.

As it happens I do use my real name, but I don't see why I should have to prove it to anyone. (And people, mostly Americans, do sometimes assume that I made it up; if I recall correctly, the phrase used on the most recent occasion was "sexually explicit joke username".)

Of course, I suppose that if they had been allowed to secede, they would then be a foreign nation which the US could have declared war on perfectly legally.

Whenever this sort of thing comes up I always wonder ... was the Civil War unconstitutional? That also involved military action against US citizens, and presumably the Union didn't hold trials for each individual Confederate soldier before allowing anyone to shoot at them.

What are the significant differences, if any?

http://basicinstructions.net/b...

Support, even FULL support, means fixing bugs; in practice, fixing important bugs. One thing it certainly doesn't mean is making every possible improvement.

There's no evidence as yet that any of the changes in question were bug fixes.

OK ... and if any of this shows up in a Google search, who's going to care?

Certainly the "right to be forgotten" is.

I don't think you're paying attention. I've already pointed out that I'm not American.

Taking precautions when dealing with a known convict is not punishment. And what kind of person needs an incentive to behave decently?

Which again begs the question: how do you tell?

Personally, I'm far more critical of their habit of incarcerating people for trivial reasons and their inhumane prison conditions. But I don't see that it's relevant to my question.

Do Europeans really say things like, "I lost my life savings by investing with someone who turned out to be a criminal, but never mind. Yeah, it would have been nice to know about his past convictions before I invested my money, but hey, privacy!"

IMO, if the state *is* going to forbid me from researching someone's past before making decisions about them, the state should also compensate me for any resulting losses, whether monetary or otherwise. Somehow I'm doubtful that the EU is planning to do that.

I'm puzzled. On the one hand, we have someone making a donation to an organized group so they can pay professionals to manipulate public opinion regarding a referendum. This you say is free speech.

On the other hand we have someone joining a campaign to complain to an organization about their choice of CEO. This isn't?

What's the difference?

Punished? Maybe not. But treated with caution? Absolutely.

So ... who exactly decides that you're no longer a threat?

The critical assumption behind this article is that the ISPs "slow lane" - i.e., the general internet - will degrade to the point where it isn't usable.

Now, the FCC claims to be planning regulation to prevent this, but it's unsurprising that people don't trust them.

However: the "slow lane" is still going to be most of the internet. The question becomes, will enough of a typical ISPs customers use *only* those mainstream, big business web sites able to pay the ISP's bribes (and assuming that they are willing to do so) that it is feasible for the ISP to lose the rest?

I find it doubtful, but if anyone has statistics it would be interesting ...