5 ms·

I don't think people should have right to be forgotten, just like they shouldn't have the right to be killed by someone or right to be sold to slavery. I think

by js8 3y ago

I don't think people should have right to be forgotten, just like they shouldn't have the right to be killed by someone or right to be sold to slavery. I think people should rather own their mistakes, and should behave to be remembered fondly rather than disgracefully. Forgiving someone should happen on terms of person doing it.

Etheryte 3y ago
This doesn't really address the core of the problem which is why people often wish to delist, defamation and intentionally inaccurate or misleading information. Anyone can go and make a website right now that claims that someone else is a child predator or a terrorist or what have you. Mix the fake information in with some real facts and plausible glue and you have your standard fake news level content. Should there be no way to get rid of such content aimed at you online? As a tangential side note, why shouldn't people have the right to be killed? Assisted suicide is legal in many countries for people who are e.g. battling a painful disease with no hope for a cure or improvement with modern medicine.
- kypro 3y ago
  Does Canada not have laws against defamation? In the UK and US you could make a website and write that someone is a child predator but you probably get charged with libel.
supertron 3y ago
You seem to be assuming that just because someone wants to be "forgotten" they've done something wrong. There is a vast number of situations where someone might want to be forgotten because someone else has done / is doing something wrong towards them.
- epakai 3y ago
  Then they should be made whole by that perpetrator. If that action can just be memory holed for a victim's sake then you have motivated the perpetrator to lean on them so their wrongdoing can be forgotten.
- mikecoles 3y ago
  Your classification of situations by 'vast number' is wrong. Most erasures are to hide guilt.
eropple 3y ago
And when that "right to be forgotten" is being exercised to expunge demonstrably false information that, because the internet is generally a swamp of copy-paste today, will be replicated endlessly to that person--not even a notable person's--detriment? Or because, say, they have been the victim of a crime perpetuated by a popular person and that popular person's stans won't leave them alone? I recognize the potential problems, but there are absolutely good and just reasons for this in the main.
- gruez 3y ago
  >And when that "right to be forgotten" is being exercised to expunge demonstrably false information that, because the internet is generally a swamp of copy-paste today, will be replicated endlessly to that person--not even a notable person's--detriment? Does that mean if there's unflattering information about you on the internet (eg. disorderly conduct video), you can get that scrubbed by by posting some "demonstrably false information" about yourself (eg. that you're a child predator and war criminal), thereby causing your whole identity to be delisted?
  - eropple 3y ago
    This sort of gray area is one for a court to figure out. If it were me? "Court records and reporting on governmental proceedings, including civil and criminal proceedings, shall not be included unless a court determines there is no prevailing public interest." Barring that? I think erring on the side of the vastly more numerous set of decent people who may be affected by parrot farms is probably wise. (And I can't speak to Canadian jurisprudence, but it's often the case that courts make a broader decision in the American system and constrain it down over time.)
    - gruez 3y ago
      > This sort of gray area is one for a court to figure out. If it were me? "Court records and reporting on governmental proceedings, including civil and criminal proceedings, shall not be included unless a court determines there is no prevailing public interest." Okay but the hypothetical above doesn't include any court proceedings or any other government records. It's just a video of the person doing something illegal. It doesn't even have to be limited to videos/photos, it could also be verbal accusations (eg. of sexual harassment). >Barring that? I think erring on the side of the vastly more numerous set of decent people who may be affected by parrot farms is probably wise. I don't get it, are there websites out there dedicated to posting false information about random people?
asciimov 3y ago
So someone that is falsely accused of a rape or murder, that is widely reported, shouldn't have any recourse after the fact to have those stories removed from searches? Often news organizations will only report on the accusation and rarely update when they are exonerated.
- mehh 3y ago
  Google doesn’t produce the content, sites do, the issue is with those sites surely?
  - eropple 3y ago
    One of those things is a reachable legal entity. The other is a pop-up content farm whose next instance is a few hours of work away. Google is the logical one to ask.
    - epakai 3y ago
      A library is a reachable entity. Do we ask them to purge their catalog of metadata that indicates a particular source contains particular data about someone? The premise is absurd.
  - asciimov 3y ago
    That can be extremely difficult to do false information is spread widely. Say a story is published by the Associated Press and then is republished on hundreds of other websites.
  - simion314 3y ago
    >Google doesn’t produce the content, sites do, the issue is with those sites surely? Google decides what someone will see when they Google your name, they might decide that the articles where you were accused of CP have much more priority then the single article 1 month later where you were found not guilty.
dbsmith83 3y ago
> I don't think people should have right to be forgotten, just like they shouldn't have the right to be killed by someone or right to be sold to slavery. I don't see your logic at all. The premise is something which the person is seeking, and your examples are things the subject would not want (to be killed or sold into slavery). I understand the rest of what you're saying, though.
- js8 3y ago
  I meant that these things are illegal even if the victim agrees with them.
janosdebugs 3y ago
Why the right to be forgotten exists in general: Let's say there was a widely publicised murder in your neighborhood. You get picked up by the police, your mugshot and name get plastered all over the newspapers. It's a mistake. They catch the real perp a few days later and you go free. Now every time someone searches your name they are greeted with your mugshot. You don't get jobs, you don't get to rent an apartment and so on. It's not fair, it doesn't serve society in any way, shape, or form. You should be able to get that information removed. The same goes, of course, for any drunken party pictures and the likes, which should have no bearing on your life decades later.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >Let's say there was a widely publicised murder in your neighborhood. You get picked up by the police, your mugshot and name get plastered all over the newspapers. It's a mistake. They catch the real perp a few days later and you go free. Now every time someone searches your name they are greeted with your mugshot. You don't get jobs, you don't get to rent an apartment and so on. It's not fair, it doesn't serve society in any way, shape, or form. You should be able to get that information removed. Rather than gaslighting the world, shouldn't you just prevent the problem? That is, just ban posting that sort of information before a conviction.
  - fknorangesite 3y ago
    > ban posting that sort of information before a conviction. A society that does not make arrest information public is one where it is very easy for someone to "disappear." That's the whole point.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      If the government is trying to disappear people, then having in place the mechanisms for a right to be forgotten seems like it would only help them disappear people more thoroughly.
  - janosdebugs 3y ago
    That is the case in a lot of places for arrests, but wrong convictions are a thing too and those get reported. Plus, there are situations where someone posted a presumably funny picture of someone else, which you should absolutely have the right to not be found. It has an impact on your life for no good reason.

by js8 3y ago

Etheryte 3y ago

This doesn't really address the core of the problem which is why people often wish to delist, defamation and intentionally inaccurate or misleading information. Anyone can go and make a website right now that claims that someone else is a child predator or a terrorist or what have you. Mix the fake information in with some real facts and plausible glue and you have your standard fake news level content. Should there be no way to get rid of such content aimed at you online? As a tangential side note, why shouldn't people have the right to be killed? Assisted suicide is legal in many countries for people who are e.g. battling a painful disease with no hope for a cure or improvement with modern medicine.

kypro 3y ago
Does Canada not have laws against defamation? In the UK and US you could make a website and write that someone is a child predator but you probably get charged with libel.

supertron 3y ago

You seem to be assuming that just because someone wants to be "forgotten" they've done something wrong. There is a vast number of situations where someone might want to be forgotten because someone else has done / is doing something wrong towards them.

epakai 3y ago
Then they should be made whole by that perpetrator. If that action can just be memory holed for a victim's sake then you have motivated the perpetrator to lean on them so their wrongdoing can be forgotten.
mikecoles 3y ago
Your classification of situations by 'vast number' is wrong. Most erasures are to hide guilt.

eropple 3y ago

And when that "right to be forgotten" is being exercised to expunge demonstrably false information that, because the internet is generally a swamp of copy-paste today, will be replicated endlessly to that person--not even a notable person's--detriment? Or because, say, they have been the victim of a crime perpetuated by a popular person and that popular person's stans won't leave them alone? I recognize the potential problems, but there are absolutely good and just reasons for this in the main.

gruez 3y ago
>And when that "right to be forgotten" is being exercised to expunge demonstrably false information that, because the internet is generally a swamp of copy-paste today, will be replicated endlessly to that person--not even a notable person's--detriment? Does that mean if there's unflattering information about you on the internet (eg. disorderly conduct video), you can get that scrubbed by by posting some "demonstrably false information" about yourself (eg. that you're a child predator and war criminal), thereby causing your whole identity to be delisted?
- eropple 3y ago
  This sort of gray area is one for a court to figure out. If it were me? "Court records and reporting on governmental proceedings, including civil and criminal proceedings, shall not be included unless a court determines there is no prevailing public interest." Barring that? I think erring on the side of the vastly more numerous set of decent people who may be affected by parrot farms is probably wise. (And I can't speak to Canadian jurisprudence, but it's often the case that courts make a broader decision in the American system and constrain it down over time.)
  - gruez 3y ago
    > This sort of gray area is one for a court to figure out. If it were me? "Court records and reporting on governmental proceedings, including civil and criminal proceedings, shall not be included unless a court determines there is no prevailing public interest." Okay but the hypothetical above doesn't include any court proceedings or any other government records. It's just a video of the person doing something illegal. It doesn't even have to be limited to videos/photos, it could also be verbal accusations (eg. of sexual harassment). >Barring that? I think erring on the side of the vastly more numerous set of decent people who may be affected by parrot farms is probably wise. I don't get it, are there websites out there dedicated to posting false information about random people?

asciimov 3y ago

So someone that is falsely accused of a rape or murder, that is widely reported, shouldn't have any recourse after the fact to have those stories removed from searches? Often news organizations will only report on the accusation and rarely update when they are exonerated.

mehh 3y ago
Google doesn’t produce the content, sites do, the issue is with those sites surely?
- eropple 3y ago
  One of those things is a reachable legal entity. The other is a pop-up content farm whose next instance is a few hours of work away. Google is the logical one to ask.
  - epakai 3y ago
    A library is a reachable entity. Do we ask them to purge their catalog of metadata that indicates a particular source contains particular data about someone? The premise is absurd.
- asciimov 3y ago
  That can be extremely difficult to do false information is spread widely. Say a story is published by the Associated Press and then is republished on hundreds of other websites.
- simion314 3y ago
  >Google doesn’t produce the content, sites do, the issue is with those sites surely? Google decides what someone will see when they Google your name, they might decide that the articles where you were accused of CP have much more priority then the single article 1 month later where you were found not guilty.

dbsmith83 3y ago

> I don't think people should have right to be forgotten, just like they shouldn't have the right to be killed by someone or right to be sold to slavery. I don't see your logic at all. The premise is something which the person is seeking, and your examples are things the subject would not want (to be killed or sold into slavery). I understand the rest of what you're saying, though.

js8 3y ago
I meant that these things are illegal even if the victim agrees with them.

janosdebugs 3y ago

Why the right to be forgotten exists in general: Let's say there was a widely publicised murder in your neighborhood. You get picked up by the police, your mugshot and name get plastered all over the newspapers. It's a mistake. They catch the real perp a few days later and you go free. Now every time someone searches your name they are greeted with your mugshot. You don't get jobs, you don't get to rent an apartment and so on. It's not fair, it doesn't serve society in any way, shape, or form. You should be able to get that information removed. The same goes, of course, for any drunken party pictures and the likes, which should have no bearing on your life decades later.

thfuran 3y ago
>Let's say there was a widely publicised murder in your neighborhood. You get picked up by the police, your mugshot and name get plastered all over the newspapers. It's a mistake. They catch the real perp a few days later and you go free. Now every time someone searches your name they are greeted with your mugshot. You don't get jobs, you don't get to rent an apartment and so on. It's not fair, it doesn't serve society in any way, shape, or form. You should be able to get that information removed. Rather than gaslighting the world, shouldn't you just prevent the problem? That is, just ban posting that sort of information before a conviction.
- fknorangesite 3y ago
  > ban posting that sort of information before a conviction. A society that does not make arrest information public is one where it is very easy for someone to "disappear." That's the whole point.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    If the government is trying to disappear people, then having in place the mechanisms for a right to be forgotten seems like it would only help them disappear people more thoroughly.
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  That is the case in a lot of places for arrests, but wrong convictions are a thing too and those get reported. Plus, there are situations where someone posted a presumably funny picture of someone else, which you should absolutely have the right to not be found. It has an impact on your life for no good reason.