Considering the alarming lack of honesty in regards to all things related to surveillance on the American public, are we really expected to believe them when they say that they're going to stop doing what they only admitted to doing after being caught red-handed?
When I was a kid, before video games were really a thing, we played cops and robbers; it was violent (nobody ever got arrested, just shot). Sometimes we played with fake swords instead, also violent. When my dad was young it was cowboys and indians... violent.
When was this imaginary time when kids games didn't include violence?
Would you be so kind as to do a write up for Reddit? I think more people need to understand what's wrong with the idea of intellectual property, and I'd love to have something to direct them to when I meet maximalists.
I'm not sure I'm still upset about this. They are saying "If you want to do business in Canada, then these are rules we expect you to apply everywhere."
What if, say, they said "If you want to do business in Canada, you may not be engaged in slave trading anywhere in the world." Would that be a problem?
To use the China example, sure, China can attempt to censor the internet globally. That's the price of doing business in China. They have zero power over my local newspaper who doesn't have reporters in China.
The real issue, to me, comes when a company like Google or Yahoo says "Ok, we'll comply with that and censor globally".
And forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but couldn't any company just spin off a wholly-owned subsidiary called "GoogleCanada" which *does* follow the Canada rules (or China rules etc.) and have regular Google pull out of the country?