14 ms·

I don't think it's libel to state facts such as "M. Vanger, of Hedestad, Sweden, requested that 37 pages regarding events in 2006, 2007, and 2009 be removed."

• happyscrappy 12y ago
  Maybe but that would draw more attention to these items as they could just be diffed against the actual search results and posted by people not affected by EU foolishness. Edit: People in the EU will be "protected" from seeing certain information that the rest of the world will have no problem seeing. And even people in the EU will be able to see it if the have a VPN. Google will do their best to stay in Europe but they have had to give up before.
  • benologist 12y ago
    *Protected, not affected. The EU at least is trying to address the issue, something Google never cared to do themselves which paved the way for mountains of extortion and spam/scraper sites amplifying the effect of anything a person did.
• magicalist 12y ago
  I think happyscrappy maybe meant "liable"
• mantrax5 12y ago
  That's kinda useless, isn't it. First, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of "M. Vanger" in any bigger city. Second, M. Vanger has the right to request that information above hidden as well, so in the end the information would look like: "M. Vanger, of Hedestad, Sweden, requested that 1 page containing a note of his page removal requests be removed."
  • judk 12y ago
    Conclusion does not follow from evidence.