7 ms·

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. W

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
  So you want a US based Google where only US based content is ranked?
  - losteric 9y ago
    Well that's a red herring, what made you jump to that conclusion?
guelo 9y ago
If Google didn't post it why would you go after Google? Tell whoever posted it or whoever is hosting it to take it down.
- 1337biz 9y ago
  Because Google makes it easy to find. Nobody cares about some rant about you by an anonymous customer, or just your ex partner when it is on page 73. But if it is on page 1 and the other party refuses to take it down you just feed an endless army of lawyers.
  - losteric 9y ago
    There are other search engines and data aggregators. Making Google hide things just gives victims false peace of mind... The problem is still there.
  - acct1771 9y ago
    That's when you get your page, with your side of the story, ranked #2, or at least page 1. That's the nature of the internet. The great equalizer
- spunker540 9y ago
  The problem isn’t that the content exists- it’s that google surfaces it.
  - losteric 9y ago
    "The problem isn't that someone lit my house on fire - it's that I can see the fire"
    - askmike 9y ago
      Closer to "The problem isn't that I bought a fridge, the problem is that it malfunctioned and my house burned down." The problem is the content showing up when searching for someone's name, not that there is an article on a website somewhere.
      - losteric 9y ago
        That's a really poor metaphor because the fridge is the problem - you don't want people seeing that content because it's inherently "bad". If it's not on Google search, it becomes harder to find... but it's still there, still discoverable, and now you have no awareness or control over the situation. I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity.
        askmike 9y ago
        > I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity. This has nothing to do with security through obscurity, it has to do with rights of human beings. Anyway Google doesn't either, hence the article.
    - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
      Probably the problem description should be something that is legal in most places but would cause real problems for anyone caught doing it. so let's say Eric was out drunk with his friends and they walked in a sex shop and picked up some dildos because hah hah this shit is funny we are so drunk and then Eric took some silly photos cuddling the dildo or mimicking putting it in his ass and someone posted it to the internet and now eric would like it gone. Now Eric's pictures on the internet are actually sort of funny so they have gotten some exposure, and so Eric finds he can't keep his job at the local macho place of employment - I don't know why, maybe he's not good at talking shit to anyone who talks shit to him so everybody picks on him about his stupid funny photos. So he gets fired or quits because can't handle the harassment, and is sick of going out and hearing hey it's dildo guy. So he moves away. Nobody in his new town know's he's dildo guy, but then he goes out one night with this girl, and somebody exclaims omg it's that dildo guy, hey look at this everybody I got me some google skills, I saw this hilarious picture one time. Now on the one hand Eric has given the world a lot of (unpaid) entertainment as dildo guy, but on the other hand when he commits suicide because he is emotionally unconstituted to go through life being called out every now and then as dildo guy then he makes people feel bad. So in order to allow Eric to make his stupid drunk dildo hugging photo and not ruin the rest of his life for something embarrassing but totally legal let's just give him the right to remove the stuff from google. That way, when he moves from his old town where there are lots of people remembering the whole dildo picture situation, in his new town people didn't know him when it was fresh and his stupidity is somehow 'forgotten' thus preserving the ability that people have had throughout history of moving from one area because their reputation at that area had become to problematic to continue. Google makes sure the reputation follows.
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
Well maybe Eric shouldn't have "driven drunk"? Im not sure why search providers should be held accountable for protecting the carefully curated (false) reputations of individuals. All of the "right to be forgotten" arguments seem to devolve to "people shouldn't be able to know any data points that would negatively effect my social standings".
- petre 9y ago
  What if someone posts libelous information about Eric and uses SEO to make it show up on page 1 of Google's search results?
  - ragequitta 9y ago
    Even more troubling is deep fake technology that's run rampant. Should a serious director never hire Emma Watson again because she's such a prominent porn actress? Of course "we all know" that's fake. But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake?
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake? Isn't that a point in the other direction? The existence of convincing fakes will teach people not to believe everything they see on the internet.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Depends if in the scenario you're imagining, "libelous" implies false, or just damaging.
dingo_bat 9y ago
Take them to court. Or learn to accept it.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves? RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress. This is one of the reasons its so important.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    > So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves? Does Europe not have the concept of a court-appointed lawyer? > RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress. No it makes it possible for criminals to hide their criminality. To be very blunt, if I were an employer, I don't want to hire a murderer. I don't care if he/she was convicted and served their time. Once you have committed murder, I will not hire you. I will not deal with you in any way. Hiding/obfuscating true information from me is wrong. Criminality is public record. It should be easily accessible.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Court appointed lawyers are for criminal cases, not civil ones. This is pretty common across legal systems, AFAIK. RTBF does not protect murderers, this is a fundamental lack of knowledge of the law and its clearly marked boundaries.
    - aspaceman 9y ago
      > Does Europe not have the concept of a court-appointed lawyer? Not sure you understand how court-appointed attorneys work. First off, you can't use one to sue someone else since you can only get a court-appointed attorney when you're being charged in a criminal suit. Second, court-appointed attorneys suck. They are underpaid, overworked, and unable to properly do their jobs as is. Requiring legal action would indeed create a scenario where only the rich bring such cases to trial.
greglindahl 9y ago
Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, that's 100% legal thanks to the First Amendment, as long as the photographer agrees. Eric has no part. Attacking search engines on behalf of Eric, in the US, not so cool. Europe doesn't have free speech, so, no problem.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. RBTF, maybe, but how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability. The problem is that the shield has value to the search engine in excess of the cost to the search engine (but not the cost to the censorship victim) of removing the information. It reduces their risk, even when the risk is low because they would be likely to win, and removes the cost of having to litigate the issue even if they do win, so the search engine takes the deal and then executes ~all the notices even when they're bogus. Which is a direct cost to the censorship victim compared to handling it the way Section 230 does it, and an indirect cost to the search engine because it has them paying to process the removal of legitimate information and reduces the value of their service to customers -- just not enough of an indirect cost to give them the incentive to refuse, because the brunt of the cost is on the third party being censored.
    - greglindahl 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
So you want a US based Google where only US based content is ranked?
- losteric 9y ago
  Well that's a red herring, what made you jump to that conclusion?

guelo 9y ago

If Google didn't post it why would you go after Google? Tell whoever posted it or whoever is hosting it to take it down.

1337biz 9y ago
Because Google makes it easy to find. Nobody cares about some rant about you by an anonymous customer, or just your ex partner when it is on page 73. But if it is on page 1 and the other party refuses to take it down you just feed an endless army of lawyers.
- losteric 9y ago
  There are other search engines and data aggregators. Making Google hide things just gives victims false peace of mind... The problem is still there.
- acct1771 9y ago
  That's when you get your page, with your side of the story, ranked #2, or at least page 1. That's the nature of the internet. The great equalizer
spunker540 9y ago
The problem isn’t that the content exists- it’s that google surfaces it.
- losteric 9y ago
  "The problem isn't that someone lit my house on fire - it's that I can see the fire"
  - askmike 9y ago
    Closer to "The problem isn't that I bought a fridge, the problem is that it malfunctioned and my house burned down." The problem is the content showing up when searching for someone's name, not that there is an article on a website somewhere.
    - losteric 9y ago
      That's a really poor metaphor because the fridge is the problem - you don't want people seeing that content because it's inherently "bad". If it's not on Google search, it becomes harder to find... but it's still there, still discoverable, and now you have no awareness or control over the situation. I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity.
      - askmike 9y ago
        > I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity. This has nothing to do with security through obscurity, it has to do with rights of human beings. Anyway Google doesn't either, hence the article.
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    Probably the problem description should be something that is legal in most places but would cause real problems for anyone caught doing it. so let's say Eric was out drunk with his friends and they walked in a sex shop and picked up some dildos because hah hah this shit is funny we are so drunk and then Eric took some silly photos cuddling the dildo or mimicking putting it in his ass and someone posted it to the internet and now eric would like it gone. Now Eric's pictures on the internet are actually sort of funny so they have gotten some exposure, and so Eric finds he can't keep his job at the local macho place of employment - I don't know why, maybe he's not good at talking shit to anyone who talks shit to him so everybody picks on him about his stupid funny photos. So he gets fired or quits because can't handle the harassment, and is sick of going out and hearing hey it's dildo guy. So he moves away. Nobody in his new town know's he's dildo guy, but then he goes out one night with this girl, and somebody exclaims omg it's that dildo guy, hey look at this everybody I got me some google skills, I saw this hilarious picture one time. Now on the one hand Eric has given the world a lot of (unpaid) entertainment as dildo guy, but on the other hand when he commits suicide because he is emotionally unconstituted to go through life being called out every now and then as dildo guy then he makes people feel bad. So in order to allow Eric to make his stupid drunk dildo hugging photo and not ruin the rest of his life for something embarrassing but totally legal let's just give him the right to remove the stuff from google. That way, when he moves from his old town where there are lots of people remembering the whole dildo picture situation, in his new town people didn't know him when it was fresh and his stupidity is somehow 'forgotten' thus preserving the ability that people have had throughout history of moving from one area because their reputation at that area had become to problematic to continue. Google makes sure the reputation follows.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

Well maybe Eric shouldn't have "driven drunk"? Im not sure why search providers should be held accountable for protecting the carefully curated (false) reputations of individuals. All of the "right to be forgotten" arguments seem to devolve to "people shouldn't be able to know any data points that would negatively effect my social standings".

petre 9y ago
What if someone posts libelous information about Eric and uses SEO to make it show up on page 1 of Google's search results?
- ragequitta 9y ago
  Even more troubling is deep fake technology that's run rampant. Should a serious director never hire Emma Watson again because she's such a prominent porn actress? Of course "we all know" that's fake. But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake?
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake? Isn't that a point in the other direction? The existence of convincing fakes will teach people not to believe everything they see on the internet.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Depends if in the scenario you're imagining, "libelous" implies false, or just damaging.

dingo_bat 9y ago

Take them to court. Or learn to accept it.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves? RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress. This is one of the reasons its so important.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves? Does Europe not have the concept of a court-appointed lawyer? > RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress. No it makes it possible for criminals to hide their criminality. To be very blunt, if I were an employer, I don't want to hire a murderer. I don't care if he/she was convicted and served their time. Once you have committed murder, I will not hire you. I will not deal with you in any way. Hiding/obfuscating true information from me is wrong. Criminality is public record. It should be easily accessible.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Court appointed lawyers are for criminal cases, not civil ones. This is pretty common across legal systems, AFAIK. RTBF does not protect murderers, this is a fundamental lack of knowledge of the law and its clearly marked boundaries.
  - aspaceman 9y ago
    > Does Europe not have the concept of a court-appointed lawyer? Not sure you understand how court-appointed attorneys work. First off, you can't use one to sue someone else since you can only get a court-appointed attorney when you're being charged in a criminal suit. Second, court-appointed attorneys suck. They are underpaid, overworked, and unable to properly do their jobs as is. Requiring legal action would indeed create a scenario where only the rich bring such cases to trial.

greglindahl 9y ago

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, that's 100% legal thanks to the First Amendment, as long as the photographer agrees. Eric has no part. Attacking search engines on behalf of Eric, in the US, not so cool. Europe doesn't have free speech, so, no problem.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. RBTF, maybe, but how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability. The problem is that the shield has value to the search engine in excess of the cost to the search engine (but not the cost to the censorship victim) of removing the information. It reduces their risk, even when the risk is low because they would be likely to win, and removes the cost of having to litigate the issue even if they do win, so the search engine takes the deal and then executes ~all the notices even when they're bogus. Which is a direct cost to the censorship victim compared to handling it the way Section 230 does it, and an indirect cost to the search engine because it has them paying to process the removal of legitimate information and reduces the value of their service to customers -- just not enough of an indirect cost to give them the incentive to refuse, because the brunt of the cost is on the third party being censored.
  - greglindahl 9y ago