4 ms·

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

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?
    - eropple 3y ago
      > I don't get it, are there websites out there dedicated to posting false information about random people? Yes. And also prurient and invasive things that may be true (which is why we have laws against things like revenge porn, which Google also removes from its SERPs in some jurisdictions.
xoa 3y ago
>is being exercised to expunge demonstrably false information that We already have defamation law for that, have had it for literally centuries. If you can prove in court that something is defamation, you can then get court orders around it, including having it taken down from the actual source sites as well as search engines. There is no new "right to be forgotten" law needed for that that that's not what the push has been about, it's about people complaining about stuff that they say is "outdated" or "harmful" but not actually defamatory, you'll notice they don't actually go after any of the places that host the content even when it's in their own jurisdiction. It's the truth, just an unpleasant truth they don't like showing up. The extent to which government force should be used to wipe someone's slate cleaner is certainly debatable. Arguments can be made that at one point even a nasty criminal who wanted to turn over a new leaf could travel to a frontier or the like where nobody would know them or find out about them and start anew, and that was a good thing (vs criminals who did that and just did more crimes). And that maybe that should be something society backs. And then there are arguments against it. But that's a very different debate then if the information is simply false.
- anilakar 3y ago
  The internet is global yet you can't deport people abroad to answer libel charges. Cyberbullying does not have borders. Allowing someone to delist information via the single most important bottleneck, the search engine, is a very reasonable solution.

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?
  - eropple 3y ago
    > I don't get it, are there websites out there dedicated to posting false information about random people? Yes. And also prurient and invasive things that may be true (which is why we have laws against things like revenge porn, which Google also removes from its SERPs in some jurisdictions.

xoa 3y ago

>is being exercised to expunge demonstrably false information that We already have defamation law for that, have had it for literally centuries. If you can prove in court that something is defamation, you can then get court orders around it, including having it taken down from the actual source sites as well as search engines. There is no new "right to be forgotten" law needed for that that that's not what the push has been about, it's about people complaining about stuff that they say is "outdated" or "harmful" but not actually defamatory, you'll notice they don't actually go after any of the places that host the content even when it's in their own jurisdiction. It's the truth, just an unpleasant truth they don't like showing up. The extent to which government force should be used to wipe someone's slate cleaner is certainly debatable. Arguments can be made that at one point even a nasty criminal who wanted to turn over a new leaf could travel to a frontier or the like where nobody would know them or find out about them and start anew, and that was a good thing (vs criminals who did that and just did more crimes). And that maybe that should be something society backs. And then there are arguments against it. But that's a very different debate then if the information is simply false.

anilakar 3y ago
The internet is global yet you can't deport people abroad to answer libel charges. Cyberbullying does not have borders. Allowing someone to delist information via the single most important bottleneck, the search engine, is a very reasonable solution.