I don't understand this line of reasoning. How would these convictions stop the web? How will the reversal of these convictions keep the web from being stopped? If it doesn't get reversed at the EU level does this mean that they managed to stop the web? What if a similar conviction happened in Uzbekistan?

To clarify, I think I first need to define globalization. I mean the current world order where the wishes of all of the countries has someone become much greater than any of the individual countries. On defining globalization, I will quote the real rms: "...there are other kinds of globalization, the globalization of cooperation and sharing knowledge". My real definition for globalization is closer to world government, but those two words are not nearly enough to describe the complexity of globalization.

I have a 3 hour lecture on DVD from a powerful Chinese CCP member/academic talking mostly about globalization, I should really digitize it and post the highlights sometime. If anyone wants to see this lecture, email me.

--

The only country where a conviction like this would have been meaningful is in the USA, because Google is from the USA and in some important ways the USA owns the internet. Even if the conviction of the Google executives was upheld at the EU level, it wouldn't do much more than cause Google to open up divestment discussions with Europe, similar to their ongoing discussions with China. Europe is not stupid enough to kick Google out, though China (and by China I mean the rulers of the CCP, not the people of China) probably is that stupid and evil.

By the way, though the Italian court system is clearly very flawed, I do give them credit for being able to hold executives accountable for crimes committed by the corporation.