11 ms·

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone should be doing proper due diligence. Google CANNOT become our only source of truth. Edit: grammar. Edit 2: My point is about the perception of Google as the only relevance source of information for society. Not a value judgement on the concept of a "right to be forgotten" from any source or surfacer of information.

joe_the_user 9y ago
The post above shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. "Right to be forgotten" laws apply as much to other sources of information as they do to Google. The discussion has become a bad version of "telephone", people responding to quotes in the parent rather than knowing anything about the issue in question. The question of whether one uses Google or other sources is irrelevant here. Sure, journalists could go to find public records and not be able to be published because of the law (because their article wouldn't be listed etc).
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  No they don't. They explicitly don't apply to journalism. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. That's why people try to get things delisted from Google, because they can't get the original publisher to remove them.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Note: I should add "effectively apply" to my above post. If journalist articles can't be found on aggregators, they being effectively censored even if they are allowed to be published. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it. Especially, this would impact a journal outside the "top 100" - Someone could conceivably search the 50 or 100 top publications but after that you need an aggregator. So essentially this would censor journalism. And to my original point, it's not just about Google in particular since the alternative to Google is pretty much some other aggregator.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      >If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it. Oh this I 100% agree with. Information isn't information if it can't be found. (And noting that I'm employed by Google) I don't at all find the argument that "we can't prevent you from publishing something, but we can prevent it from being accessed" not compelling. Does it apply to newspaper anthologies or hard copy aggregation?
- philippejara 9y ago
  This is effectively giving the government power to decide what is legal speech and what isn't, no thanks. And yes I know defamation laws already do give them this power kindam but I still find them disgusting.
  - Zack9999 9y ago
    Disagree this is about giving private citizens control over information about them, that is inaccurate or no longer relevant. Who wouldn't want that right?
lightbyte 9y ago
Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?
- jbigelow76 9y ago
  I don't really support the right to be forgotten specifically for the reasons the gp poster outlined, but that needs to be addressed with the governing body making the law. I am still against the perception that if it's not on Google it never happened.
- gaius 9y ago
  Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. It will still be there for anyone willing to put in the effort to find it of course. Just like it was in the old days. Google will happily ruin that person's life forever for a few cents in ad clicks. Think about that.
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    >it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. I don't agree that this will protect anyone, or that they need to be protected in the first place. This is just hiding the problem that someone would judge you for whatever the content is. In my opinion the real solution here is to be more understanding to stupid things people have done in the past. Nobody is perfect, so why are you letting whatever that story on Google is affect your judgement of the person, assuming they learned from whatever it was.
    - 9y ago
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
> Google CANNOT become our only source of truth. Unfortunately we live in a world where if something is not listed in Google's SERP, we doubt it exists.
- leereeves 9y ago
  And we argue about how that power should be used, when we should be trying to limit that power instead.
leereeves 9y ago
> If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google ... would Google be allowed to link to stories that mention those bankruptcies?
losteric 9y ago
Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call it what it is: "Right to hide the past". Forget the truth, security through obscurity. Knowledge is power, and search engines are the map. edit: And hopefully it's obvious the issue of search results is separate from consumer data mining/ad profiling.
- jbigelow76 9y ago
  Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? No we should not, the law seems well intentioned, some kid may not have to worry about an embarrassing photo from university days following him/her around into their adult life, etc. But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information.
  - thegeomaster 9y ago
    >But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information. You say that, but according to some reports, only 5% of requests to Google to remove personal information from search results comes from high-profile figures (politicians and the like), the rest is just ordinary people [1]. I know that there is a huge selection bias going on here, but I'm not sure you can discount the data point just based off of that. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-accidentally-reveals-right-to-be-forgotten-requests https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-ac...
    - jbigelow76 9y ago
      I don't know if the volume of requests is as important as the nature of the request. If part of the 5%, let's say it's high profile person due to running a large ponzi scheme that defrauded people out of millions of dollars, that may be only one request but it is info that most definitely should be easily surfaced.
jdc 9y ago
We're looking at potentially orders of magnitude difference in publicity here. I think the big question here is whether we can improve our societies by being intentional about what determines said magnitude.
drb91 9y ago
What would an alternative to google look like, even? You still need a search engine for archive.org, for example.
drivingmenuts 9y ago
Google is not the only source of information, but it is A source of information. Why should Google not be permitted to index public sources of information?
lolcatnip 9y ago
The "right to be forgotten" applies to all search engines, and possibly other types of business as well. Google just happens to be the first company to get into trouble about it.
wpietri 9y ago
What's your alternative here? If people can eliminate data from search engines, what does it matter if something is nominally part of some unfindable public record? It's not like this "right to be forgotten" will apply only to Google. If Google folds, all search engines will surely respect it.
grigjd3 9y ago
As much as I don't like this, a lot of people don't know how to acquire information online outside of google and Facebook.
the_watcher 9y ago
> Google CANNOT become our only source of truth. Agreed. That said, should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be deleted from Google?
dithering 9y ago
> Removed from google != removed from public record. "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" I'm imagining a subscription-based aggregator - something like LexisNexis, say - that isn't subject to the same right-to-be-forgotten laws that search engines are. It at least seems possible that we'll end up with a situation analogous to the credit scoring industry - with data accessible to corporations, but not accessible to individuals.
wdr1 9y ago
The right to be forgotten != Google

joe_the_user 9y ago

The post above shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. "Right to be forgotten" laws apply as much to other sources of information as they do to Google. The discussion has become a bad version of "telephone", people responding to quotes in the parent rather than knowing anything about the issue in question. The question of whether one uses Google or other sources is irrelevant here. Sure, journalists could go to find public records and not be able to be published because of the law (because their article wouldn't be listed etc).

joshuamorton 9y ago
No they don't. They explicitly don't apply to journalism. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. That's why people try to get things delisted from Google, because they can't get the original publisher to remove them.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Note: I should add "effectively apply" to my above post. If journalist articles can't be found on aggregators, they being effectively censored even if they are allowed to be published. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it. Especially, this would impact a journal outside the "top 100" - Someone could conceivably search the 50 or 100 top publications but after that you need an aggregator. So essentially this would censor journalism. And to my original point, it's not just about Google in particular since the alternative to Google is pretty much some other aggregator.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it. Oh this I 100% agree with. Information isn't information if it can't be found. (And noting that I'm employed by Google) I don't at all find the argument that "we can't prevent you from publishing something, but we can prevent it from being accessed" not compelling. Does it apply to newspaper anthologies or hard copy aggregation?
philippejara 9y ago
This is effectively giving the government power to decide what is legal speech and what isn't, no thanks. And yes I know defamation laws already do give them this power kindam but I still find them disgusting.
- Zack9999 9y ago
  Disagree this is about giving private citizens control over information about them, that is inaccurate or no longer relevant. Who wouldn't want that right?

lightbyte 9y ago

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?

jbigelow76 9y ago
I don't really support the right to be forgotten specifically for the reasons the gp poster outlined, but that needs to be addressed with the governing body making the law. I am still against the perception that if it's not on Google it never happened.
gaius 9y ago
Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. It will still be there for anyone willing to put in the effort to find it of course. Just like it was in the old days. Google will happily ruin that person's life forever for a few cents in ad clicks. Think about that.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  >it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. I don't agree that this will protect anyone, or that they need to be protected in the first place. This is just hiding the problem that someone would judge you for whatever the content is. In my opinion the real solution here is to be more understanding to stupid things people have done in the past. Nobody is perfect, so why are you letting whatever that story on Google is affect your judgement of the person, assuming they learned from whatever it was.
  - 9y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

> Google CANNOT become our only source of truth. Unfortunately we live in a world where if something is not listed in Google's SERP, we doubt it exists.

leereeves 9y ago
And we argue about how that power should be used, when we should be trying to limit that power instead.

leereeves 9y ago

> If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google ... would Google be allowed to link to stories that mention those bankruptcies?

losteric 9y ago

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call it what it is: "Right to hide the past". Forget the truth, security through obscurity. Knowledge is power, and search engines are the map. edit: And hopefully it's obvious the issue of search results is separate from consumer data mining/ad profiling.

jbigelow76 9y ago
Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? No we should not, the law seems well intentioned, some kid may not have to worry about an embarrassing photo from university days following him/her around into their adult life, etc. But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information.
- thegeomaster 9y ago
  >But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information. You say that, but according to some reports, only 5% of requests to Google to remove personal information from search results comes from high-profile figures (politicians and the like), the rest is just ordinary people [1]. I know that there is a huge selection bias going on here, but I'm not sure you can discount the data point just based off of that. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-accidentally-reveals-right-to-be-forgotten-requests https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-ac...
  - jbigelow76 9y ago
    I don't know if the volume of requests is as important as the nature of the request. If part of the 5%, let's say it's high profile person due to running a large ponzi scheme that defrauded people out of millions of dollars, that may be only one request but it is info that most definitely should be easily surfaced.

jdc 9y ago

We're looking at potentially orders of magnitude difference in publicity here. I think the big question here is whether we can improve our societies by being intentional about what determines said magnitude.

drb91 9y ago

What would an alternative to google look like, even? You still need a search engine for archive.org, for example.

drivingmenuts 9y ago

Google is not the only source of information, but it is A source of information. Why should Google not be permitted to index public sources of information?

lolcatnip 9y ago

The "right to be forgotten" applies to all search engines, and possibly other types of business as well. Google just happens to be the first company to get into trouble about it.

wpietri 9y ago

What's your alternative here? If people can eliminate data from search engines, what does it matter if something is nominally part of some unfindable public record? It's not like this "right to be forgotten" will apply only to Google. If Google folds, all search engines will surely respect it.

grigjd3 9y ago

As much as I don't like this, a lot of people don't know how to acquire information online outside of google and Facebook.

the_watcher 9y ago

> Google CANNOT become our only source of truth. Agreed. That said, should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be deleted from Google?

dithering 9y ago

> Removed from google != removed from public record. "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" I'm imagining a subscription-based aggregator - something like LexisNexis, say - that isn't subject to the same right-to-be-forgotten laws that search engines are. It at least seems possible that we'll end up with a situation analogous to the credit scoring industry - with data accessible to corporations, but not accessible to individuals.

wdr1 9y ago

The right to be forgotten != Google