The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and sell the pictures, would you say that's interference in your free life as well?
>what definition of "free" you're using here
Free as in relatively unencumbered by government regulation. I think it's fair to say based off his "GDPR was just the first step" comment that he views increased government control of the internet as the axis along which the freedom he is referring to is measured.
>Are you saying that anything moving away from uncontrolled anarchy is cutting away freedom..
I take that as a given. Anarchy is the state in which people are unconstrained, and are thus maximally free. Anything short of anarchy implies that there is something limiting people's choices.
>...and we therefore shouldn't do that?
Isn't this basically the entire issue with governments? We give up freedoms in exchange for other benefits. Entire political philosophies devote their energy to the question of how much freedom we should exchange.
>The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and sell the pictures, would you say that's interference in your free life as well?
Do you really think that openbasic is taking this EU move as a chance to advocate for total anarchy? Or is it more likely that they disagree with this freedom/benefits trade-off and you are strawmanning?
Freedom in the US and Freedom in the EU are differently defined, in part because of history and culture.
The GDPR takes away some "freedoms to", but, for example, it gives me "freedom from tracking without consent" and "freedom from having my data eternally stored by a third party"/"freedom from having my data owned by a third party", which I think of as valuable freedoms to have.
I think the problem is that there are actually two meanings for "free" used in this discussion, right?
One is "free" as a positive descriptor of a good society, comparable with words like "equal" etc.
The second one is more like ..."technical" freedom maybe? Total anarchy would be the state of maximum freedom by this definition.
Most people probably desire maximal freedom by the first definition but not the second. And to achieve the first kind (free to live my life like I want for example) the government or some other instance has to cut away freedom from the second definition (forbiding me to prevent other people too live their way, using the same example). So the discussion should rather focus on how much the government shall cut off the second king, because speaking of freedom as a onedimensional scale is obviously confusing - do you agree with that?