10 ms·

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

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?
  - losteric 9y ago
    Counter solution: Outlaw publishing suspect names until after they are convicted. This model is used by other nations because regulating publications prevents both short and long-term harm while still preserving access to the truth.
    - shakna 9y ago
      And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?
      - gray_-_wolf 9y ago
        In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.
        shakna 9y ago
        That information has already been dissiminated. And usually has a higher hit-rate than any correction. We know employers can and have discriminated against individuals where convictions have been overturned.
        losteric 9y ago
        Relevancy is a problem that firmly falls under Google's responsibility... and businesses must be punished for discriminating over incomplete background checks. However, I don't think the false conviction should be hidden - what if they were guilty and there's a crimes down the road? That information could be useful for the public.
        astura 9y ago
        Saying "X was convicted of Y" is not a "false claim," when X really was convicted of Y. If X's conviction is later overturned, that's additional information, but it doesn't make the original information false. Nobody owes anyone an apology.
- itronitron 9y ago
  Platform owners are constantly changing things, removing content, and revising their TOS to take away any and all control from individuals. Is there any doubt as to how this is going to end?
losteric 9y ago
Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty of anonymous platforms. * Uphold social media to the same standards of traditional media, requiring truth and propagation of redactions and corrections. Libel and slander are well-established concepts. * Demand discretion from friends. In college, my group had a strict "no-camera" rule when it came to embarrassing or unlawful shenanigans. My parent's generation had the same rule. Hiding search results does not address the problem. If someone posts a photoshop of "Eric driving drunk" on Twitter, I want that post promptly removed... the search results are just a symptom.
- mynewtb 9y ago
  So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?
  - mjevans 9y ago
    A prospective Eric could engage in some formal process to require distinctive detail be added to that 'accusation' so that it does not defame the Eric which did not drive drunk.
  - losteric 9y ago
    Contact the platform to demand removal. The porn industry has SOPs for dealing with this problem, I am not a lawyer but I imagine that process can be generalized and legally enforced If that someone shared it on their own website, hosted out-of-country, on their own hardware... well, I can't do anything about that but i also wouldn't care. It's clearly non-authoritative and won't get SEO traction by itself.
    - 1337biz 9y ago

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?
- losteric 9y ago
  Counter solution: Outlaw publishing suspect names until after they are convicted. This model is used by other nations because regulating publications prevents both short and long-term harm while still preserving access to the truth.
  - shakna 9y ago
    And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?
    - gray_-_wolf 9y ago
      In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.
      - shakna 9y ago
        That information has already been dissiminated. And usually has a higher hit-rate than any correction. We know employers can and have discriminated against individuals where convictions have been overturned.
        losteric 9y ago
        Relevancy is a problem that firmly falls under Google's responsibility... and businesses must be punished for discriminating over incomplete background checks. However, I don't think the false conviction should be hidden - what if they were guilty and there's a crimes down the road? That information could be useful for the public.
      - astura 9y ago
        Saying "X was convicted of Y" is not a "false claim," when X really was convicted of Y. If X's conviction is later overturned, that's additional information, but it doesn't make the original information false. Nobody owes anyone an apology.
itronitron 9y ago
Platform owners are constantly changing things, removing content, and revising their TOS to take away any and all control from individuals. Is there any doubt as to how this is going to end?

losteric 9y ago

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty of anonymous platforms. * Uphold social media to the same standards of traditional media, requiring truth and propagation of redactions and corrections. Libel and slander are well-established concepts. * Demand discretion from friends. In college, my group had a strict "no-camera" rule when it came to embarrassing or unlawful shenanigans. My parent's generation had the same rule. Hiding search results does not address the problem. If someone posts a photoshop of "Eric driving drunk" on Twitter, I want that post promptly removed... the search results are just a symptom.

mynewtb 9y ago
So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?
- mjevans 9y ago
  A prospective Eric could engage in some formal process to require distinctive detail be added to that 'accusation' so that it does not defame the Eric which did not drive drunk.
- losteric 9y ago
  Contact the platform to demand removal. The porn industry has SOPs for dealing with this problem, I am not a lawyer but I imagine that process can be generalized and legally enforced If that someone shared it on their own website, hosted out-of-country, on their own hardware... well, I can't do anything about that but i also wouldn't care. It's clearly non-authoritative and won't get SEO traction by itself.
  - 1337biz 9y ago