10 ms·

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 happ

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.
w0m 9y ago
This. Thank you.
acqq 9y ago
> should we eliminate it as a source of truth? From my point of view, Google eliminated itself long ago: it's already intentionally very biased, distorting the reality by design, different to every of its users: adjusting the "algorithm" to return to the seeker what the seeker would click the most and also what the Google's marketing would like to present, even to the point of intentionally ignoring the very words you entered in the search(!). Just try to find somebody with whom you seriously disagree on some topic then ask him/her kindly to "google" the same terms related to that topic and to let you see what he/she sees. Compare.
- obmelvin 9y ago
  I know you already say that is your point of view, but I think this very much in the eye of the beholder. I very much like this personalization and it makes it easier to find things I'm looking for. E.g. when I search `latex` I don't want to find latex bodysuits, I want results about LaTeX and I expect Google to know that. That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on a search-by-search basis in a similar manner to how one can look for results from a certain time period
  - acqq 9y ago
    If you just speak about the positive aspects, you obviously never compared what you surely know to be truth, related to some "controversial" topic, with what some other people get when they search for the same topic, especially those who have different opinion of what "the truth" is. Not counting that even that "magnification of the confirmation" is additionally modified for some topics by the "editorial" policies of Google.
  - gray_-_wolf 9y ago
    > That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on a search-by-search basis it is, it's called anonymous window
    - bringtheaction 9y ago
nlowell 9y ago
The right to be forgotten is meant to protect individuals' privacy. You sound as if you believe that a world in which all knowledge was public forever would be a better world. I disagree with this and think that we have to weigh it with individual privacy and safety. Not to mention the fact that these search engines are not 100% accurate, so it would be beneficial at least to allow people to remove inaccurate sources. Embarrassing / reputation-affecting knowledge being available to the public forever is not the same as truth being available. Especially now that we see how engines like Youtube go out of their way to offer extreme and provocative information, we should not leave it to search engines to be unregulated sources of information about individuals. Search engines will not tell your employers that you work diligently everyday but they will show an offensive tweet of yours from 2007 if that's what gets clicks and reactions.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  You're arguing that the knowledge being public is somehow different from truth. I disagree with this - facts must be available. Google must be a source of information. Search engines are the interface to the web - removing information from a search engine is tantamount to erasing it from memory. The idea that people have the right to hide their pasts is a ridiculous assertion - it goes against freedom of speech, it goes against freedom of the press in the most literal sense, and it benefits people who truly did bad things the most. If I made an offensive tweet in 2007, I'd stand by it, and assert that it's my tweet but I'm also a different person. Personal integrity would demand no less. Hiding behind a "privacy" law to conceal something you shouted from the rooftops in 2007 is a disingenuous position to take.
  - yulaow 9y ago
    Counter-example: What if someone accused you of raping her/him and that news remains online close to your name because it's a typical scandal and heavily reported but, when it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, there is no news reporting it because it's not a clicky article? It happens frequently, not only with rape, but with any false accusation of a major crime... Typically there are a lot of articles about it but if you are proven innocent no main source reports it. Now, would you want that information to remain online and to appear instantly anytime some HR look for your name after reading it in your cv?
anoncoward7780 9y ago
Do you understand the Diff between a search engine and "Public Record"? "knowledge is power, and search engines are the map". Hey kid, there's a whole world out there that's not your google. Libraries have books, City Hall has public records. How about get off your butt and learn how real research is done. Hint: it's not on facebook, google, or twitter.
- zbentley 9y ago
  Rather a lot of journalists and writers (and an increasing number of academics) would disagree with you...
  - earenndil 9y ago
    Not to mention doctors. It's not that real research can't be done in libraries or magazines, or even that google is better, it's just that different tools are suited to different tasks, and some of those tools are google.
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
the point of the right to be forgotten is if you did something stupid at some point and it is always available and super easy to find then anyone can always look you up and say hey did a stupid thing let's not hire them or maybe we should proactive and do something to them because the stupid thing was not just stupid but also maybe bad. So yes it is the right to hide the past to the extent that it should not be super easy to get all available dirt on anyone at any time anybody gets nosy or irritated. But if you are willing to put in weeks of work to find out that someone once smoked pot or burned an american flag or whatever you can still put in those weeks of work.

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.

w0m 9y ago

This. Thank you.

acqq 9y ago

> should we eliminate it as a source of truth? From my point of view, Google eliminated itself long ago: it's already intentionally very biased, distorting the reality by design, different to every of its users: adjusting the "algorithm" to return to the seeker what the seeker would click the most and also what the Google's marketing would like to present, even to the point of intentionally ignoring the very words you entered in the search(!). Just try to find somebody with whom you seriously disagree on some topic then ask him/her kindly to "google" the same terms related to that topic and to let you see what he/she sees. Compare.

obmelvin 9y ago
I know you already say that is your point of view, but I think this very much in the eye of the beholder. I very much like this personalization and it makes it easier to find things I'm looking for. E.g. when I search `latex` I don't want to find latex bodysuits, I want results about LaTeX and I expect Google to know that. That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on a search-by-search basis in a similar manner to how one can look for results from a certain time period
- acqq 9y ago
  If you just speak about the positive aspects, you obviously never compared what you surely know to be truth, related to some "controversial" topic, with what some other people get when they search for the same topic, especially those who have different opinion of what "the truth" is. Not counting that even that "magnification of the confirmation" is additionally modified for some topics by the "editorial" policies of Google.
- gray_-_wolf 9y ago
  > That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on a search-by-search basis it is, it's called anonymous window
  - bringtheaction 9y ago

nlowell 9y ago

The right to be forgotten is meant to protect individuals' privacy. You sound as if you believe that a world in which all knowledge was public forever would be a better world. I disagree with this and think that we have to weigh it with individual privacy and safety. Not to mention the fact that these search engines are not 100% accurate, so it would be beneficial at least to allow people to remove inaccurate sources. Embarrassing / reputation-affecting knowledge being available to the public forever is not the same as truth being available. Especially now that we see how engines like Youtube go out of their way to offer extreme and provocative information, we should not leave it to search engines to be unregulated sources of information about individuals. Search engines will not tell your employers that you work diligently everyday but they will show an offensive tweet of yours from 2007 if that's what gets clicks and reactions.

freeone3000 9y ago
You're arguing that the knowledge being public is somehow different from truth. I disagree with this - facts must be available. Google must be a source of information. Search engines are the interface to the web - removing information from a search engine is tantamount to erasing it from memory. The idea that people have the right to hide their pasts is a ridiculous assertion - it goes against freedom of speech, it goes against freedom of the press in the most literal sense, and it benefits people who truly did bad things the most. If I made an offensive tweet in 2007, I'd stand by it, and assert that it's my tweet but I'm also a different person. Personal integrity would demand no less. Hiding behind a "privacy" law to conceal something you shouted from the rooftops in 2007 is a disingenuous position to take.
- yulaow 9y ago
  Counter-example: What if someone accused you of raping her/him and that news remains online close to your name because it's a typical scandal and heavily reported but, when it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, there is no news reporting it because it's not a clicky article? It happens frequently, not only with rape, but with any false accusation of a major crime... Typically there are a lot of articles about it but if you are proven innocent no main source reports it. Now, would you want that information to remain online and to appear instantly anytime some HR look for your name after reading it in your cv?

anoncoward7780 9y ago

Do you understand the Diff between a search engine and "Public Record"? "knowledge is power, and search engines are the map". Hey kid, there's a whole world out there that's not your google. Libraries have books, City Hall has public records. How about get off your butt and learn how real research is done. Hint: it's not on facebook, google, or twitter.

zbentley 9y ago
Rather a lot of journalists and writers (and an increasing number of academics) would disagree with you...
- earenndil 9y ago
  Not to mention doctors. It's not that real research can't be done in libraries or magazines, or even that google is better, it's just that different tools are suited to different tasks, and some of those tools are google.

bryanrasmussen 9y ago

the point of the right to be forgotten is if you did something stupid at some point and it is always available and super easy to find then anyone can always look you up and say hey did a stupid thing let's not hire them or maybe we should proactive and do something to them because the stupid thing was not just stupid but also maybe bad. So yes it is the right to hide the past to the extent that it should not be super easy to get all available dirt on anyone at any time anybody gets nosy or irritated. But if you are willing to put in weeks of work to find out that someone once smoked pot or burned an american flag or whatever you can still put in those weeks of work.