Here’s one of the Germans. As you can see it was data protection he used by claiming Wikipedia and journalists violated his privacy by having public articles on his crimes. The articles were taken down under data protection laws because even though they were true they violated his rights to control his data lol.
I don’t know the case number but what I do know is that it’s why google will no longer inform people whose websites are delisted because of data protection takedowns. There was an article in the guardian about it recently.
The German serial killer removing his Wikipedia page is an even better example though.
The Swedish guy just got search engine results delisted but did not actually remove the newspaper articles whereas the German guy literally got the original source material removed.
Nope. In European countries you can use data protection laws to shut down criticism of you even if it is true. You’re from Sweden- a Swedish criminal (almost certainly a jew or some kind of Muslim) recently sued google for data protection violations because it refused to remove details of his criminal record from its public database. When google then sent the takedown notice to the newspapers who’s articles were removed the criminal then sued google again and the Swedish court ruled that it violated his data protection to inform the newspapers of the takedown requests against them.
European countries have very strict laws called data protection laws which when they were introduced the citizens were told was simply to enable them to prevent companies basically storing lots of shit on them and to prevent professionals randomly discussing their clients in their academic work. They were also told that these laws would enable them to demand companies hand over information the company had on them which was in response to fired lawyers refusing to hand over their clients case files to the new lawyers in order to spite the client.
On the surface three data protection laws seem really good.
In reality, these laws were quickly twisted into what they now are where in many European countries any criticism of anyone or any company no matter how true it is is automatically illegal because it violates their right to control their data in the public sphere etc. A corrupt politician or businessman can literally force newspapers to delete their reporting on his conviction from a few years ago for molesting his children because it violates his data when potential clients or voters see it.
This is what you’re seeing with the French law banning criticism of vaccine companies. It’s simply an expansion of data protection in that these vaccine companies don’t want criticism of them and the European country is enforcing that into law because the company has the right under these awful tyrannical laws to control its public data in a way that outside Europe would be terrifying.
This is why you MUST USE A VPN if you are in Europe and forums like this have a duty to document corruption there so that people in Europe with a con can still see it even if reporting on said corrupting has been nerfed in Europe lol.
Really though? Instagram is typical meta in that a bunch of retarded pajeet moderators remove and approve things at random with no consistency.
Oy vey! Still a step up from goyslop!
I didn’t realise anyone but Chinese restaurants forced that shit on people.
Yep this is well known.
Of course. It started with gdpr which allow corrupt people to get things removed which contain truthful bad things about them and now we’re getting told to fear the AI deepfake because that way corrupt filth can now claim videos of them doing things are in fact artificially generated Russian propaganda or whatever. Deepfakephobia makes gdpr look amateur tbh.
Ironically based. Return to a barter economy where the government can’t trace every fucking transaction.
Who gives a fuck about some streamer whore?
Based and truth pilled.
OY VEY! The bots arguing is going to be hilarious.
oy vey
Expression. Implies shock.
bots
Artificial intelligence. Something which is not real.
going
Something which is intended. A destination.
hilarious
Something which is funny. Comical. Amusing.
All that’s missing is the guy with the 4 letter names like Else, What, Then, That etc to come and join the bot discussion.
(Funny) (new) my new racist post! FED SHILLS DOWNVOTING ME AGAIN.
Sharpie “THERE ARE TWO GENDERS. ITS OKAY TO BE WHITE”.
JUst hope the black female disability hire air Marshall doesn’t shoot you.
Why would anyone except a degenerate draw child porn?
Perverts get the rope, Ethan Goldwitz.
Good. Letting Sweden into nato would be like letting Ireland or Somalia into NATO. in other words Sweden will be a pathetic weak link which enables Russia to more easily spread the Russian Peace into Europe and save Europeans from America and the jewropean union.
American troops are now more thinly spread out in order to assist another freeloading welfare state which views anything masculine as toxic.
Based and truth pilled.
The disability thing was scary but was the natural result of the ADA. You can not discriminate against disability even when any normal person knows it’s necessary so allowing a paranoid schizophrenic to fly an airline is just how it is in America. Likewise retarded black air traffic control idiots is another thing that simply is to be expected because of discrimination law.
Funny thing is this will result in flights coming from America not being allowed in other countries. They aren’t going to want a schizophrenic black woman flying a passenger jet over densely populated areas.
They call this satire but non gender specified restrooms in airlines is the norm. Anyone can go to any restroom that’s free. I don’t remember the last airline I was on where there was a gender specified restroom.
Didn’t realize about Arizona. Guess the Beaners claimed it was discrimination.
There should be a waving flag too!
The Pirate Bay is a copyright issue. That’s irrelevant to the discussion because copyright is only really on things you own. With that being said, copyright laws are sometimes used in America to remove bad reviews by filing abusive DMCA takedowns claiming that the review contains a protected trademark or copyrighted material and therefore is to be removed.
The thing is, you can challenge a dmca takedown notice by stating it’s fair use. By submitting a counter notification your review or whatever immediately gets reuploaded because you have indemnified the hosting service such as google or Facebook from a copyright suit and stated you yourself will take the full brunt if the person who filed the dmca notice sues.