5 ms·

Interesting question. While in principle it seems like a terrible idea to force someone to delete such "important" information, I also kinda understand how the

Interesting question. While in principle it seems like a terrible idea to force someone to delete such "important" information, I also kinda understand how the person in question wouldn't want this information floating around forever. If I understand the situation correctly, it should probably be enough if this journalist would anonymize the names in the article, so it can no longer be traced back to any individual. After so many years, that does seem reasonable. Also consider that journalists were never allowed to just publish anything. There always had to be a public interest for them to be allowed to publish certain details about peoples lives, so it only makes sense that they'd have to remove it as this public interest fades with time, yet the impact on peoples lives remains the same. Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up when googling your name is a news story like that. On the other hand, who really cares about that story enough that it's worth possibly destroying someones life over it? --- EDIT: From the text > “My only duty is to write and verify information,” Mr. Biancardi said from the apartment where he and Ms. Lotti worked 12-hour days at side-by-side desks. “Everything else comes after.” Interesting that the privacy of the subjects he writes about doesn't seem to be a part of his thought process at all. If his defense was "There's still (and always will be) a public interest in this case", then I might have agreed, but with that attitude, I won't even call this guy a journalist.

9dl 7y ago
Internet never forgets
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  Yes it does. The internet forgets lots of things. And anyway, this isn't about completely removing information from the internet, but removing it from the "front" of the internet, aka. news sites that show up at the top of google searches and are more trustworthy than some discussion from 9 years ago on a now half-dead message board.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Not wanting to dispute your point about the ranking of information, but sadly many news articles provide less perspective and accuracy on issues compared to original sources. I would consider it the rule by now.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mopsi 7y ago
  It does, moreso than ever before, because fast internet speeds allow on-demand access and no-one has to download anything. Media files like Youtube videos or podcast episodes rarely get archived, at least in a publicly accessible way. Once they are taken down, they are usually gone. There's a particular 1970s Pan Am ad I regret not saving: just a man looking at the camera and challenging the viewer to "do the things you always wanted to do" instead of worrying too much. Few years ago it got taken down from Youtube and I haven't been able to find it anywhere else online.
distances 7y ago
> Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up when googling your name is a news story like that. Around here it's illegal to google applicants without their consent. Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided. Granted, that's undetectable unless the person doing the hiring messes up and mentions this. I do follow the law myself, don't really know what others are doing. Also not sure how widespread this requirement is even in Europe.
- jefftk 7y ago
  Where is "Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided" the law? This seems very excessive. For example, if I used to work with you at a different company and know you're really good it's very strange that I wouldn't be allowed to consider that in hiring you.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    Surely there at least needs to be some way to seek independent verification (or otherwise) of the information provided by the applicant. We can't be expected to make hiring decisions solely and entirely on people's self-provided information.
    - distances 7y ago
      You can ask for verifications of course. You can get copies of the degrees, access any GitHub account the applicant provides, call to former employers they provided as recommendations. If applicant refuses to do that, well, I suppose you can use that factoid in the hiring decision too. Just ask for permission to google if it's crucial for the process.
      - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
        That seems to be quite the reasonable law then.
  - distances 7y ago

9dl 7y ago

Internet never forgets

DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
Yes it does. The internet forgets lots of things. And anyway, this isn't about completely removing information from the internet, but removing it from the "front" of the internet, aka. news sites that show up at the top of google searches and are more trustworthy than some discussion from 9 years ago on a now half-dead message board.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Not wanting to dispute your point about the ranking of information, but sadly many news articles provide less perspective and accuracy on issues compared to original sources. I would consider it the rule by now.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mopsi 7y ago
It does, moreso than ever before, because fast internet speeds allow on-demand access and no-one has to download anything. Media files like Youtube videos or podcast episodes rarely get archived, at least in a publicly accessible way. Once they are taken down, they are usually gone. There's a particular 1970s Pan Am ad I regret not saving: just a man looking at the camera and challenging the viewer to "do the things you always wanted to do" instead of worrying too much. Few years ago it got taken down from Youtube and I haven't been able to find it anywhere else online.

distances 7y ago

> Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up when googling your name is a news story like that. Around here it's illegal to google applicants without their consent. Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided. Granted, that's undetectable unless the person doing the hiring messes up and mentions this. I do follow the law myself, don't really know what others are doing. Also not sure how widespread this requirement is even in Europe.

jefftk 7y ago
Where is "Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided" the law? This seems very excessive. For example, if I used to work with you at a different company and know you're really good it's very strange that I wouldn't be allowed to consider that in hiring you.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Surely there at least needs to be some way to seek independent verification (or otherwise) of the information provided by the applicant. We can't be expected to make hiring decisions solely and entirely on people's self-provided information.
  - distances 7y ago
    You can ask for verifications of course. You can get copies of the degrees, access any GitHub account the applicant provides, call to former employers they provided as recommendations. If applicant refuses to do that, well, I suppose you can use that factoid in the hiring decision too. Just ask for permission to google if it's crucial for the process.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
      That seems to be quite the reasonable law then.
- distances 7y ago