Re:Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in B...
by thatjamesdude on Saturday October 10, 2020 @01:43PM
(#24740535)
That feels like a false equivalency, because what I'm talking about is the right to be forgotten.
Which is only a fallacy because data is a commodity, not because it's technically impossible.
And yes you can't really be forgotten, copies can always exist but it shouldn't be hosted readily if you don't want it to be.
Unless I'm missing something?
Re:Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in B...
by ethbr0 on Saturday October 10, 2020 @03:47PM
(#24741369)
How would you propose to enforce that goal?
Re:Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in B...
by jlokier on Saturday October 10, 2020 @10:20PM
(#24743348)
It might not be enforceable, while still coming under "shouldn't".
It's not always possible to make people do the right thing. But when it's not possible, it doesn't cease to be the right thing to demand, continuously, hoping to use the power of pressure or persuasion.
Re:Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in B...
by zootboy on Saturday October 10, 2020 @12:48PM
(#24740171)
I disagree that the only viable enforcement is preemptive blocking. Plenty of offenses in the physical world only have after-the-fact punishments. There aren't spike strips physically preventing you from parking in the red zone.
The problem with that belief is enforcement.
Because illegal numbers [0] are trivially shared, the only viable enforcement to prevent their sharing must have incredibly broad reach.
This ultimately collapses down into "users cannot be allowed to own and operate their own general purpose computer."
And while I'm open to arguments as to why the above is a straw man (I disagree), if you believe the above enforcement scheme is for the greater good then we have very different ideas about individual freedom and the relative value thereof.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number