You are quoting extremely selectively, the sentence right before the one you are quoting says
The purpose of this site is to list all links which are being censored by search engines due to the recent ruling of "Right to be forgotten" in the EU.
It's not a list of "everything that has ever been censored" (which would be a very long list).
Frankly, I don't think your comment makes very much sense. The purpose of the website is to discuss whether the _right to be forgotten_ ruling, on balance, does more good or bad. If we were discussing marijuana legalization and someone submitted a list of people imprisoned for marijuana possession, would you complain that "this list should include serial killers, they are in prison too"?
The quote covers more than half the text on the page, which is hardly extremely selective, and at risk of going blue in the face, crucially includes the phrases "a way of archiving the actions of censorship on the Internet" and "decide whether our liberties are being upheld or violated" -- the former cannot be achieved without examining all successful forms of censorship, and the latter cannot be achieved without comprehensively listing instances where those forms of censorship are effective, in addition to the instances where they are not.
The site narrowly focuses on a subset of the disadvantages of censorship, and consequently its premise is defective. This isn't very difficult to understand, and therefore I find it absurd how anyone could conclude that it is addressing any issue on balance, as you have done here.
The site lists all known applications of the right to be forgotten ruling, without any further comment. The list maintainer does not exercise any editorial judgement at all, so I don't think there is a narrow focus on disadvantages.
If I understand you correctly, your argument is "this site claims to be about internet censorship, but it only talks about the right to be forgotten ruling. But the right to be forgotten is unusually bad, and there are other forms of more beneficial censorship. So listing just the right to be forgotten cases gives censorship in general an undeservedly bad name".
However, the page is specifically about the right to be forgotten. Even the portion you quoted specifically calls out "the recent rulings by the EU". You are acting as if the page was calling for the abolition of all forms of censorship, but I think the text actually makes quite clear that it isn't.
Comments
You are quoting extremely selectively, the sentence right before the one you are quoting says
It's not a list of "everything that has ever been censored" (which would be a very long list).
Frankly, I don't think your comment makes very much sense. The purpose of the website is to discuss whether the _right to be forgotten_ ruling, on balance, does more good or bad. If we were discussing marijuana legalization and someone submitted a list of people imprisoned for marijuana possession, would you complain that "this list should include serial killers, they are in prison too"?
The quote covers more than half the text on the page, which is hardly extremely selective, and at risk of going blue in the face, crucially includes the phrases "a way of archiving the actions of censorship on the Internet" and "decide whether our liberties are being upheld or violated" -- the former cannot be achieved without examining all successful forms of censorship, and the latter cannot be achieved without comprehensively listing instances where those forms of censorship are effective, in addition to the instances where they are not.
The site narrowly focuses on a subset of the disadvantages of censorship, and consequently its premise is defective. This isn't very difficult to understand, and therefore I find it absurd how anyone could conclude that it is addressing any issue on balance, as you have done here.
The site lists all known applications of the right to be forgotten ruling, without any further comment. The list maintainer does not exercise any editorial judgement at all, so I don't think there is a narrow focus on disadvantages.
If I understand you correctly, your argument is "this site claims to be about internet censorship, but it only talks about the right to be forgotten ruling. But the right to be forgotten is unusually bad, and there are other forms of more beneficial censorship. So listing just the right to be forgotten cases gives censorship in general an undeservedly bad name".
However, the page is specifically about the right to be forgotten. Even the portion you quoted specifically calls out "the recent rulings by the EU". You are acting as if the page was calling for the abolition of all forms of censorship, but I think the text actually makes quite clear that it isn't.