The content is still "up". This request was only to remove the search results. Removal of the results means Google cannot profit from the content. However, t

The content is still "up". This request was only to remove the search results. Removal of the results means Google cannot profit from the content. However, the publishers of the content can still profit. In some cases, the information may be published as a part of the public record, a service financed through taxes on citizens. In such cases, it is arguable there should be no "profit". However third party "tech companies" are routinely utilising public records to generate web traffic to satisfy their advertising, tracking and user data collection "business" models. "Right to be forgotten" enables people to ask search engines to remove certain results. It does not enable them to, e.g., ask newspapers to remove articles that contain accusations of harassment. As long as the articles remain available from the original publisher, the newspaper, the "right to be forgotten" has no effect on access to the information. What it does do is cut out the search engine online ad sales services middleman, the Google web search engine, and forces the reader to go to the original publisher of the information. A third party search engine could theoretically be purely objective in its presentation of search results however it could also be non-objective, e.g., biased in favour of advancing its own interests. Now the reader has an additional potential source of bias to deal with, besides the newspaper -- the search engine. If "right to be forgotten" were the law of land worldwide, then perhaps it would put evolutionary pressure to develop more innovative methodologies and mechanisms for web users to find information on the web without using third party middlemen, e.g., ad-supported web search engines. Currently, we have continuing evolutionary pressure to centralize all web access through a few third party websites, e.g., Google.