Thursday, The European Union’s highest court will decide lower court judges could order Facebook to have information removed from its database incorrectly, increasing the ability of individual countries to access blockchain information around the world.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a ruling following an Austrian politician Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek requesting that Facebook be ordered to cancel the talks.they hate your name. »Glawischnig-Piesczek said Facebook should remove the information and block access to it around the world. The court ruled in favor of Facebook, which has had a serious impact on technology companies as disputes with foundations continue to be resolved online.
“EU law does not prevent a hosting provider such as Facebook from ordering it to be inconsistent, and in some cases, such statements as previously mentioned are illegal,” the court said in a statement. talk. “Also, EU law does not preclude any such requirement from issuing international implications, within the framework of applicable international law.”
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals ruled that companies such as Facebook and Twitter were not responsible for the information posted on their media, but the dismissal would not prevent the courts from ordering companies to take illegal information. Late last month, the same court ruled that Google did not want to remove links from «just to forget»Applications from all over the world. But illegal content will be limited in the world, according to Facebook’s official website on Thursday.
Facebook opposed the decision. “This criterion raises public questions about the ownership of publishing and the role of online companies in pursuing, interpreting and publishing information that is not appropriate in any country,” the company said. in a statement.
“We are weakened by the old policy that no country has the right to enforce its own rules on the production of another country. It opens the way to restrictions imposed on online companies to monitor information and interpret it, if it is ‘in accordance’ with what is said to be illegal. “