First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply The Right to be Forgotten
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/30/15
History of the right to be forgotten in bad story form:



For those that don't wanna read that terrible story explaining it, I'll link a Wikipedia page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

It's so you can delete anything that has anything to do with you from the Internet.

Censorship at its finest. It's basically a feminist law so you can't bring up any of the dumb shit they say to prove them wrong or talk at all. If this law is taken seriously, you might as well be a slave.

Explain your negative views on it(because no one's is positive about this law).
Posted 11/30/15
That was a colourful tale, Magical Soul. For one I might actually be inclined to agree with you on censorship being a blight of late. On the other hand , I need to think and read some more into that wiki article to be more difinitite Ciou.
20926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 11/30/15
Criminals can complete their sentence but they will always a criminal record, that need to be checked in order to gain certain types of jobs.
Now on the internet, it is private property whatever you store on my server is mine. like it or not, that whats instragram, Facebook twotter and other stuff say in its terms and condition.
Posted 11/30/15
That post gave me cancer.
3444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/30/15 , edited 11/30/15
Information wants to be free.

The internet is essentially the world's largest library. It contains countless pieces of information that, in the information era, can often be of incredible importance. Cleansing information like this is inherently unethical -- a practice used to misinform the populace and hide the truth from them. This "right to be forgotten" is nothing but a fancy little title for book burning!
Posted 11/30/15
Unless the government want it of course. That shit will stick for ever.
17570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 11/30/15 , edited 11/30/15
Its not censorship if you are deleting your own shit. You should have the right to delete your profile and all posts. However don't expect to press a button and automatically be forgotten.
3444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 11/30/15 , edited 11/30/15

Rujikin wrote:

Its not censorship if you are deleting your own shit. You should have the right to delete your profile and all posts. However don't expect to press a button and automatically be forgotten.


So you'd support the politician who deletes his lies to save press?

If you want something to stay private, you don't openly post it on the world's largest database like a dunce. Once you release that information, it should stay released. Period.
17570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 11/30/15 , edited 12/1/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Its not censorship if you are deleting your own shit. You should have the right to delete your profile and all posts. However don't expect to press a button and automatically be forgotten.


So you'd support the politician who deletes his lies to save press?

If you want something to stay private, you don't openly post it on the world's largest database like a dunce. Once you release that information, it should stay released. Period.


We cannot have separate classes of citizenship. They should be able to delete stupid shit too. However just because you delete something doesn't mean someone hasn't saved a copy of it somewhere.

Also if they say something stupid the media is all over it and it has copies all over the internet. If your a politician don't expect to actually be able to delete that stuff due to free press and all. However if someone says something stupid or wants to change their ways and remove all their previous opinions its their right to do so.
2220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/30/15
From what I'm reading here, the right to be forgotten seems to be highly misunderstood. The idea stems from the need to protect individuals from having their information posted by others without their consent as well as preserving the ability to redact information in the event that circumstances of their life change. In its untwisted state, it does not really equate to censorship because it pertains to ongoing ownership of an individual's personal information.

Generally speaking, a politician deleting lies to save press would still be against the law if the right to be forgotten were enforced. This is because the individual politician is not the owner of information created during their tenure of office. These records become public property by federal law, and the deletion, censorship, or modification of this information would be a felony.

The idea that the right to be forgotten would lead to some censorship dystopia is a gross exaggeration of what the idea is meant to accomplish. Before the internet, if people ruined their reputation by saying something stupid, they could conceivably skip town and start anew. The internet makes that not possible, and the right to be forgotten seems like a decent way to preserve our ability to start over. Also, with the right to be forgotten, a person can't just remove information at the drop of a pin, they have to submit a case to the website hosting the information to determine whether or not their need fits the expenditure of effort on the part of the website to remove it.
27572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/30/15
So much reading x.x
15959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 11/30/15
*deletes the internet*
Posted 11/30/15
That law is also in the real world its how murderers make people forget that theyve killed and soldiers of the last one make people forget that theyve fought in places even though every one knows . It stems from a tribal law in semi autonomous regimes . Where a verdict is passed and carried out but every one forgets.
22027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 11/30/15
I want to always be remembered......so i will blow up the earth :)!!
Posted 11/30/15

mickeydayum wrote:

From what I'm reading here, the right to be forgotten seems to be highly misunderstood. The idea stems from the need to protect individuals from having their information posted by others without their consent as well as preserving the ability to redact information in the event that circumstances of their life change. In its untwisted state, it does not really equate to censorship because it pertains to ongoing ownership of an individual's personal information.

Generally speaking, a politician deleting lies to save press would still be against the law if the right to be forgotten were enforced. This is because the individual politician is not the owner of information created during their tenure of office. These records become public property by federal law, and the deletion, censorship, or modification of this information would be a felony.

The idea that the right to be forgotten would lead to some censorship dystopia is a gross exaggeration of what the idea is meant to accomplish. Before the internet, if people ruined their reputation by saying something stupid, they could conceivably skip town and start anew. The internet makes that not possible, and the right to be forgotten seems like a decent way to preserve our ability to start over. Also, with the right to be forgotten, a person can't just remove information at the drop of a pin, they have to submit a case to the website hosting the information to determine whether or not their need fits the expenditure of effort on the part of the website to remove it.


That does make some sense. It could be a powerful safeguard against cyber-bullying, as well as in the event information becomes outdated and inaccurate it puts back control of individuals' information into their hands.

But what not just the left but people in general fear is the consequences of what it may mean to free speech.

My question would be "would it work"?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.