So UC davis tried to suppress videos, search results and memes of the pepper spray cop.
The video also addresses the so -called "right to be forgotten", which basically says Google has to remove someone from search results if they request it. This is already a law in the EU, but not in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSVXc_kgpLc
What does /pol/ think of this? Does someone have the right to be forgotten? Especially if they do something terrible publicly?
My opinion is, of course not. But I think Google has the right to do whatever they want as they are a private company, but I don't think the government should be enforcing this shit, because it won't end at Google. You'll get in trouble for facebook posts and tweets. We've already seen this in the EU with hate speech, but it could grow into basically anything that someone doesn't like or isn't nice. And you know, eventually they'll come for us.
When has trying to delete something off the Internet ever worked?
>>71074939
Yea Beyonce got a taste of that.
If you're going to do shit in public, then the public is going to shit on you.
>>71074832
>celebrity said something racist in the 70s
>career ruined
>cop was photographed at an unfortunate moment a decade ago
>stop everything, we need to erase this transgression to secure his future
maybe it should be clearly stated that if you work in a job where you are in public areas, you will potentially be recorded in some medium, and may have to suffer the consequences.
>>71074939
It might have worked a few hundred million of times and we wouldn't even know, precisely because it worked dumbass.
They're fucking idiots. When has that ever worked?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
>>71075201
haha you are a stupid beaner because you said 'million' instead of 'millions'
haha
>>71074939
I know, right? It seems almost absurd. But the fact that this is a law in the EU is highly disturbing. If they can tell Google to remove search results, where does it end?
>First they came for Google, and I did nothing, because fuck Google.
>Then they came for facebook, and I did nothing, because,"Normies REEEEEEEEEEE"
>Then they came for reddit, and I did nothing because kek leddit
>And then, they came for dank memes...
>>71075356
>And then, they came for dank memes...
10 years later and the world is fine and dandy under the omnipresent will of our God Emperor Kek
>>71074832
>private companies have the right to do whatever they want
ayyyy
There are whites in california?
>>71075433
Are you saying Google shouldn't have the right to manipulate search results?
>>71075537
I'll say that. I think google has an obligation to provide unbiased search results regardless of the fact they are a private corporation.
>>71075656
that means you would think wrong. They have no obligation to anyone but their investors and whoever they pay bills to
>>71074939
>When has trying to delete something off the Internet ever worked?
Never, and it always has the opposite affect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
>>71075743
Who they have an obligation to can be changed at the whim of the state since the state is what allows the legal entity of a corporation to exist in the first place. This has already happened only instead of this power being used to try and keep the information they provide objective it's been used to have them aid the government in data collection and censorship. We don't live under anything close to a perfect free market and defending a company under the pretext that we do is only allowing them to operate under their preferred double standard.
>Right to be forgotten
I bet if you Occupy Wall Street leftests had the option you would take it up for yourself too.
>oy vey
>big, mean police officer doing his job
>POLICE STATE
>>71076118
Well, I do completely agree with you. But the fact is they do have the right, whether they should or not. They way this country treats corporations and the power that they have granted them is totally out of control. As far as I understand it, corporations were never meant to be permanent entities, and were only allowed to persist as long as they were not a detriment to the people. The moment that the interests of the corporations ran opposed to the interests of the society, the were to be disbanded. But somewhere along the way, this got either completely ignored or legislated out of existence, I'm not sure which.
Please, feel free to correct me or clarify in any way you can. I didn't expect such an intelligent response to my assertion.
>>71076330
That is a really pathetic opinion. I hate the fact that people like Soros completely derailed the OWS movement by inserting a bunch of insane feminists and socialists. They were fighting for a very real cause that we should all believe in, the separation of money from politics, and the release of the stranglehold big banks have over the western world.
You have just shown that you were completely manipulated by those very banks and the media narrative. They knew damn well that people like us would completely support a movement like OWS, so that's why they presented as a bunch of stupid shit like identity politics that they knew we would absolutely despise. The fact that they succeeded in turning even the most red pilled people like /pol/lacks against the movement is only a testament to their knowledge and power, and really makes me fear that no change will ever truly be possible, that someone like Trump will never get elected.
>>71076688
It sounds like we probably have pretty similar feelings on the topic.
More money is thrown around as a justification for pretty much everything to the point where people confuse something being profitable with something being good. We can make X more dollars is used as a counter argument to points on issues that have next to nothing to do with profitability and everything to do with the ethics of the matter.
>literal DELETE THIS
ha ha
