5 ms·

I'm surprised no one has discussed an aspect of this decision that I find particularly troubling: it means that if there is a serious abuse of the right to be f

I'm surprised no one has discussed an aspect of this decision that I find particularly troubling: it means that if there is a serious abuse of the right to be forgotten law, the articles discussing that abuse may be delisted because they mention the individual involved. I'm against the law in general, but I have to admit there are cases that I find innocuous when considered by themselves. If Google has to delist an article about a private citizen's minor indiscretions, I disagree, but it's small potatoes. But any law is subject to potential overreach, and to combat it, we have to be able to discuss it. It seems that this decision works to censor criticism of the law as well. As someone will point out, you can criticize the law and be ok by omitting the relevant facts (is that just the name of the individual involved?) but I think it is bad to put this requirement on any critical discussion of the law.

smt88 11y ago
> If Google has to delist an article about a private citizen's minor indiscretions, I disagree, but it's small potatoes. There's a reason the "slippery slope" is such a popular phrase in legal discussions. What exactly is "minor"? Who is a "private citizen"? Where do you draw those lines? Everything is a spectrum. In order to arbitrate in situations where there are shades of gray, we need judges. But laws such as this are impossible to bring before a judge due to their quantity, and there isn't necessarily a single party "damaged" by the takedowns, which makes it even less plausible. There is a public interest in having this information, and it's hard to get individuals in a free society to spend a lot of time and money fighting for public interest. If you're against this law in some cases, you have to be against it in all cases.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  > If you're against this law in some cases, you have to be against it in all cases. I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Of course, if I am against a law, I think it should not exist. And that covers all cases. But equally obviously, I can say that there are cases where applying the law has better or worse consequences.
  - smt88 11y ago
    > I have to admit there are cases that I find innocuous when considered by themselves I was referring to that statement. It's never "innocuous" because there's no universal, objective guideline for what is innocuous and what isn't. Something that seems innocuous to you as a spectator may not be for people involved.
    - hyperpape 11y ago
      "It's never harmful because there's no universal, objective guideline for what is harmful and what isn't".
JamesBarney 11y ago
I think the distinction is that it won't de-index the page for all searches. It will de-index the page when people search for Johnny DidBad. Case 1 User searches for "right to be forgotten abuses" he finds a webpage about how Johnny DidBad did a bad thing and is now abusing the right to be forgotten law. In this case the right to be forgotten isn't doing anything. Case 2 User searches for "Johnny DidBad" he won't find the webpage about how Johnny DidBad did a bad thing and the right to be forgotten abuses. I'm not saying I agree with the law but I don't think it limits the ability to discuss the law, and potential abuses of it.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  Well, this is a reasonable distinction, but think about how much people look for high profile examples in political discussions.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  If it deindexes it for all searches that involve the user name, then if someone has heard of a particular abuse with the name, and attempts to search for "Johnny DidBad right to be forgotten abuses", presumably the results will be the same as for "right to be forgotten abuses" -- which might bury the results they are specific searching for, making accessing information related to discussions of the law -- which specific cases held up as examples certainly are -- more difficult.

smt88 11y ago

> If Google has to delist an article about a private citizen's minor indiscretions, I disagree, but it's small potatoes. There's a reason the "slippery slope" is such a popular phrase in legal discussions. What exactly is "minor"? Who is a "private citizen"? Where do you draw those lines? Everything is a spectrum. In order to arbitrate in situations where there are shades of gray, we need judges. But laws such as this are impossible to bring before a judge due to their quantity, and there isn't necessarily a single party "damaged" by the takedowns, which makes it even less plausible. There is a public interest in having this information, and it's hard to get individuals in a free society to spend a lot of time and money fighting for public interest. If you're against this law in some cases, you have to be against it in all cases.

hyperpape 11y ago
> If you're against this law in some cases, you have to be against it in all cases. I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Of course, if I am against a law, I think it should not exist. And that covers all cases. But equally obviously, I can say that there are cases where applying the law has better or worse consequences.
- smt88 11y ago
  > I have to admit there are cases that I find innocuous when considered by themselves I was referring to that statement. It's never "innocuous" because there's no universal, objective guideline for what is innocuous and what isn't. Something that seems innocuous to you as a spectator may not be for people involved.
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    "It's never harmful because there's no universal, objective guideline for what is harmful and what isn't".

JamesBarney 11y ago

I think the distinction is that it won't de-index the page for all searches. It will de-index the page when people search for Johnny DidBad. Case 1 User searches for "right to be forgotten abuses" he finds a webpage about how Johnny DidBad did a bad thing and is now abusing the right to be forgotten law. In this case the right to be forgotten isn't doing anything. Case 2 User searches for "Johnny DidBad" he won't find the webpage about how Johnny DidBad did a bad thing and the right to be forgotten abuses. I'm not saying I agree with the law but I don't think it limits the ability to discuss the law, and potential abuses of it.

hyperpape 11y ago
Well, this is a reasonable distinction, but think about how much people look for high profile examples in political discussions.
dragonwriter 11y ago
If it deindexes it for all searches that involve the user name, then if someone has heard of a particular abuse with the name, and attempts to search for "Johnny DidBad right to be forgotten abuses", presumably the results will be the same as for "right to be forgotten abuses" -- which might bury the results they are specific searching for, making accessing information related to discussions of the law -- which specific cases held up as examples certainly are -- more difficult.