5 ms·

> In fact, even after Google stopped listing the defamatory site, the search page added a disclaimer — in red letters — that Ervine's results had been altered

by merb 9y ago

> In fact, even after Google stopped listing the defamatory site, the search page added a disclaimer — in red letters — that Ervine's results had been altered well the search results ARE altered. google actually needs to save more data to hide a search result. it's silly that people attack google instead of the source. also if a single website tells a lie about somebody it's probably not a good source since a SINGLE website is never a good source. In european the cases were different and that's why I think "the right to be forgotten" is a dumb idea. actually official media outlets and newspapers had an article published about a guy who did something bad 15 years ago. written letters that is protected by most european law. however the guy didn't want that his bad history will be revelead so he sued. from than on everything started. here are my problems with the whole: * he actually WAS an bad actor in the past, so it's still hard to trust somebody * it's actually easier to restore trust by having a bad and a good article publish (i.e. if people change you could maybe find some writes who writes good things about you) * hiding search results won't hide the truth, it just makes it harder to access, which basically means nothing is forgotten it's just harder to find, how bad people were in the past actually there is a lot of stuff why the current system is bad.

bkor 9y ago
> he actually WAS an bad actor in the past, so it's still hard to trust somebody If you don't forgive/forget, there is no incentive for the person to behave differently. E.g. if someone once was involved with the police and as a result cannot get any proper job anymore, how would this individual ever change? Some countries seem to focused on punishing people for the rest of their lives. This sometimes under the assumption that people actually consider the impact of their actions before do it. Further, if a person is considered to be/treated as a criminal all the time then eventually they'll just behave as one.
- AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
  You forgive, you don't forget. You can't have a society where we just sweep people's past history under the rug. The only clues we have to future actions and intents are past actions.
- spacehunt 9y ago
  Since when did forget become acceptable? Do we just remove eg. the holocaust from history books now?
  - neolefty 9y ago
    Yes, forgetting is sometimes inappropriate, but not every crime is the Holocaust. It's the norm in cases involving childhood offenses, for example—expunging one's juvenile record—and it's the reason for statutes of limitations.
- merb 9y ago
  > If you don't forgive/forget, there is no incentive for the person to behave differently. E.g. if someone once was involved with the police and as a result cannot get any proper job anymore, how would this individual ever change? Forgetting the past is bad. However if the person really changed!!! than it could be easy to get positive news and trust, no matter how your past was/is. You can't change the past, so maybe it's better to get remembered at the past and be better than you were. I did bad at my past as well. Should I forget it? Hell, no. Currently I changed a lot of myself to be a better person / harder worker, etc. I did not try to dismiss my past.
  - maxmax 9y ago
    Is a mugshot of your DUI arrest (but no conviction) 20 years ago the first result of a google search for your name? No one is saying we should completely forget the past, but there needs to be recourse for people who are being treated unfairly.
    - 794CD01 9y ago
      Is a mugshot of your DUI arrest (but no conviction) 20 years ago the only remotely notable thing you've ever done in your life? If so, why shouldn't it be the first result of a search for your name? If not, why is it the first result?
      - chmod775 9y ago
        > If not, why is it the first result? Because google search rankings for any niche search strings are pretty meh. Basically anything with your full name in the URL / main body of the page will show up at the top. I filled the first two pages of results for my name with random stuff I control simply by creating profiles on carefully-chosen sites with my full name, as well as registering a bunch of domains that contain my full name. That was much easier than contacting the hundreds of news outlets who published my full name in a negative context to correct their lackluster or ambiguous journalism. There was a few notable exceptions where journalists (who all like to copy stories from each other, then copy that again) had distorted the story so far that they actually managed to confuse me with the perpetrator. In those cases I had the search results removed under the "right to be forgotten". Honestly I'd rather have the right to be forgotten in a world where bad journalism is the norm, and where trash like the Daily Mail, yellow press, and some kid with a smear campaign have so much power to destroy a persons reputation. Basically you shouldn't have to know what "SEO" means in order to fend off a smear campaign or simply bad journalism.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  I often cite this (lesser known) G.K.Chesterton's essay: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641608
leroy_masochist 9y ago
> he actually WAS an bad actor in the past To be clear, one of the main points of the article is that he was not a bad actor in the past; he saw sketchy behavior from a prospective investor and reported it to authorities, and the sketchy investigator then launched a smear campaign against him from another country.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The parent comment seemed to be talking not about the specific case in the article, but about the general "right to be forgotten" and expressing an opinion about what the commenter perceived to be potential for misuse.
ksk 9y ago
Looks like you want the government to implement a perfect law that works in every case and will never be misused. Perhaps you could propose one? :)
spinlock 9y ago
That’s where I come down on this too. Google isn’t defaming anyone. And, what about Bing, duck duck go, or any other search engine? The guy in the article could have put up his own website to correct the record. I don’t really like that solution. I really think there should be a way to get a judgement in the US to DDOS the defamatory site. If the hosting company won’t comply. But, breaking search is a cover-up not a solution. I recently left a company with a cover-up culture. You’ve never seen such terrible code. Because, no one ever weeded out the real problem. They were just ok to bury their heads in the sand as long as google didn’t let them know there were problems.

by merb 9y ago

bkor 9y ago

> he actually WAS an bad actor in the past, so it's still hard to trust somebody If you don't forgive/forget, there is no incentive for the person to behave differently. E.g. if someone once was involved with the police and as a result cannot get any proper job anymore, how would this individual ever change? Some countries seem to focused on punishing people for the rest of their lives. This sometimes under the assumption that people actually consider the impact of their actions before do it. Further, if a person is considered to be/treated as a criminal all the time then eventually they'll just behave as one.

AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
You forgive, you don't forget. You can't have a society where we just sweep people's past history under the rug. The only clues we have to future actions and intents are past actions.
spacehunt 9y ago
Since when did forget become acceptable? Do we just remove eg. the holocaust from history books now?
- neolefty 9y ago
  Yes, forgetting is sometimes inappropriate, but not every crime is the Holocaust. It's the norm in cases involving childhood offenses, for example—expunging one's juvenile record—and it's the reason for statutes of limitations.
merb 9y ago
> If you don't forgive/forget, there is no incentive for the person to behave differently. E.g. if someone once was involved with the police and as a result cannot get any proper job anymore, how would this individual ever change? Forgetting the past is bad. However if the person really changed!!! than it could be easy to get positive news and trust, no matter how your past was/is. You can't change the past, so maybe it's better to get remembered at the past and be better than you were. I did bad at my past as well. Should I forget it? Hell, no. Currently I changed a lot of myself to be a better person / harder worker, etc. I did not try to dismiss my past.
- maxmax 9y ago
  Is a mugshot of your DUI arrest (but no conviction) 20 years ago the first result of a google search for your name? No one is saying we should completely forget the past, but there needs to be recourse for people who are being treated unfairly.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    Is a mugshot of your DUI arrest (but no conviction) 20 years ago the only remotely notable thing you've ever done in your life? If so, why shouldn't it be the first result of a search for your name? If not, why is it the first result?
    - chmod775 9y ago
      > If not, why is it the first result? Because google search rankings for any niche search strings are pretty meh. Basically anything with your full name in the URL / main body of the page will show up at the top. I filled the first two pages of results for my name with random stuff I control simply by creating profiles on carefully-chosen sites with my full name, as well as registering a bunch of domains that contain my full name. That was much easier than contacting the hundreds of news outlets who published my full name in a negative context to correct their lackluster or ambiguous journalism. There was a few notable exceptions where journalists (who all like to copy stories from each other, then copy that again) had distorted the story so far that they actually managed to confuse me with the perpetrator. In those cases I had the search results removed under the "right to be forgotten". Honestly I'd rather have the right to be forgotten in a world where bad journalism is the norm, and where trash like the Daily Mail, yellow press, and some kid with a smear campaign have so much power to destroy a persons reputation. Basically you shouldn't have to know what "SEO" means in order to fend off a smear campaign or simply bad journalism.
jaclaz 9y ago
I often cite this (lesser known) G.K.Chesterton's essay: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641608

leroy_masochist 9y ago

> he actually WAS an bad actor in the past To be clear, one of the main points of the article is that he was not a bad actor in the past; he saw sketchy behavior from a prospective investor and reported it to authorities, and the sketchy investigator then launched a smear campaign against him from another country.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The parent comment seemed to be talking not about the specific case in the article, but about the general "right to be forgotten" and expressing an opinion about what the commenter perceived to be potential for misuse.

ksk 9y ago

Looks like you want the government to implement a perfect law that works in every case and will never be misused. Perhaps you could propose one? :)

spinlock 9y ago

That’s where I come down on this too. Google isn’t defaming anyone. And, what about Bing, duck duck go, or any other search engine? The guy in the article could have put up his own website to correct the record. I don’t really like that solution. I really think there should be a way to get a judgement in the US to DDOS the defamatory site. If the hosting company won’t comply. But, breaking search is a cover-up not a solution. I recently left a company with a cover-up culture. You’ve never seen such terrible code. Because, no one ever weeded out the real problem. They were just ok to bury their heads in the sand as long as google didn’t let them know there were problems.