4 ms·
This article is advocacy for the so-called 'right to be forgotten.' It's trying to convince people in the U.S. that the 'right' to be forgotten is just about f
by zeveb 9y ago
This article is advocacy for the so-called 'right to be forgotten.' It's trying to convince people in the U.S. that the 'right' to be forgotten is just about forcing Google not to highlight false information.
That, of course, is itself false, and to imply so is to lie by implication. The 'right' to be forgotten is about suppression of true information. E.g. if someone wants to remove information about a crime he committed from online newspapers, then he can. The 'right' to be forgotten is an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history. Americans should resist its introduction, and Europeans should fight for its abolition.
It's perfectly fine to force Google to stop linking to a lie; it's completely and totally wrong to force Google to stop linking to the truth.
- wsy 9y agoThis is a spin that Google itself wants to give this law, but by European law the search provider must weigh individual vs. public interest, and if there is valid public interest, keep the information online. See e.g. here for more background https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/04/google_peston_bbc_delisting_not_compliant_w_public_interest_law_says_expert/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/04/google_peston_bbc_d...
- zeveb 9y agoThe court case which created the so-called 'right to be forgotten' was about someone who wanted his poor credit erased from the historical record. One would imagine that there's a public interest in knowing if someone is a poor credit risk: anyone he asks for money has a need to know.