sakabaro

You won't vote to protect free speech?

If it's a part of conversation - like most of social media posts -, I would assume it's fair use to keep it. Like if I interview you, and I publish the video, you can't retract what you said. Why social medias should be different?

From the french version, same (23):

> envisage d'offrir des services à des personnes concernées dans un ou plusieurs États membres de l'Union

They just have to prove you are considering EU in your app. It can be anything. Like Having EU timezones, or a country input with EU countries is enough to prove intent to server EU residents. If you collect IPs via your web sever, you are infringing.

If on your social network someone wants his posts to be removed, you have to comply under GDPR, or else. HN for example doesn’t allow to remove your comments after some time.

The first protects the nodes to store whatever social data they want. GDPR with particulary the right to be forgotten is a direct attack to this.

First amendment is protecting all speeches except direct threats of violence. Right to be forgoten is by essence incompatible with the first.

GDPR is more overeaching than that. You don’t need physical presence in EU to be subject to it. In theory, just having a webserver storing access logs (default of Apache and Nginx) makes you infringing it as EU IPs are now considered personal data.

You are making the wrong assumptions. I am a EU citizen, but live in the US. I will vote in an heartbeat for a 1st amendment like in an Europe law. You just don’t see how Europe speech is reatricted, and how laws like GDPR contributes to it.

Nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other country laws. My original point is that GDPR is fundamently wrong. It’s infringing with freedom of speech by making new social network harder to create for dubious privacy gains. If you think FB is wrong, the best way to take it down is to replace it, not try to make it compliant.

They already do, don’t they?

Blockchains storing social data is good example. It's infringing by nature GDPR. A decentralised facebook-like social network on the blockchain is not possible anymore. Each node can be sue. It had happened with TOR exit nodes.

If you want to run a social media platform, GDPR is infringing your freemdom of speech. You can argue that it’s worth it, for the illusion of more privacy. I just don’t think it is.

It’s worth noting that around 85% of requests based on right to be forgotten were from public figures and institutions in 2016.

The legitimate cases are rare.

Yes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.

I think in the opposit we should urge US companies to fight against GDPR. Local foreign laws shouldn’t dictate how our companies should behave. Why not respecting speech laws in China or in Russia if we follow this precedent?