I don't like your proposed solution that uses right to be forgotten as a blunt instrument to paper over serious problems, to used a mixed metaphor. When you ap

I don't like your proposed solution that uses right to be forgotten as a blunt instrument to paper over serious problems, to used a mixed metaphor. When you appeal to the right to be forgotten to fix problems like people and "prospective employers comb over their embarrassing past", it's a way of throwing up your hands and neglecting deeper issues. In a right-to-be-forgotten world, the way it would end up going is: 1. problematic potentates punish pitiable proles 2. someone invokes right to be forgotten 3. this is considered "good enough" 4. the problem conditions that allowed #1 to fester remain uncorrected I feel this way about a lot of stuff these days (especially the where the erosion of the tenets of a liberal society is involved), where people argue vociferously for a "solution" that can at best be considered an indirect way of handling the problem. You see this with a lot of contemporary calls for the dismantling of tradition of free speech/free inquire/freedom of association, for example. People end up chafing in the direction of proposals that have dual-use effects in the first instance and perniciously "null" effects in the second instance.