3 ms·

Someone needs to make a search engine that only returns results for things that people have tried to hide under this law.

• B-Con 12y ago
  Or just make it hard to find all the instances. For example, this article itself references the content in the article that was removed from search results. The effectiveness of having the original link removed is probably very minimal unless this page is also removed. Ultimately, it's a race. The "hider" has to find all the things they want hidden and explicitly list them. As long as the content spreads faster than it is banned, the banning is negated.
  • tokenizerrr 12y ago
    It's just weird that the search engine is tasked with the removal. If other sites can legally link to the "forgotten" content - which appears to still be online - then why can't a search engine link to it? If they want this ruling to make sense at all, the removal requests should go directly to the entity hosting the content in my opinion.
    • outside1234 12y ago
      don't confuse logic with politics! :)
    • WiseWeasel 12y ago
      Since the impact of such an implementation would be greater, it would be harder to pass a law requiring it. This is a more gentle way to censor public debate, while allowing more specialized "research" search engines to continue providing the information to those who could not accept to have it denied. Not to mention how much easier it is to send all requests to a handful of major search providers rather than having to determine who hosts what and hoping they know how to properly deal with such a request.