6 ms·

Put down your Google pitchfork. The article is clearly not placing the blame on Google: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what eff

by mccr8 12y ago

Put down your Google pitchfork. The article is clearly not placing the blame on Google: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship." The second paragraph says this is the result of a court ruling. If the most concerning thing to you about this article is that it doesn't spend enough time exonerating Google for their role in this, then I don't know what to tell you.

kjksf 12y ago
Google doesn't have to be "exonerated" of anything because all they do is comply with (absurd) law. And the article does imply the blame lies with Google way too many times.
- dingdingdang 12y ago
  > And the article does imply the blame lies with Google way too many times. No, it certainly does not: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship."
  - eloff 12y ago
    You guys are all right and wrong at the same time. The article both blames and exonerates Google. Depending on what quotes you pick you can support a case for either. The people who are saying it shouldn't blame Google are right, Google is just complying with the law. That the article is inconsistent with where it's laying the blame, is the fault of sloppy journalism.
  - jamesbritt 12y ago
    "Reluctant" is an odd choice of words though. It suggests Google had some possible option to refuse. "Unwilling" or "legally obligated" might describe it better. It's hard not to see this phrasing as an attempt to spread some culpability on to Google.
    - pooper 12y ago
      This is what the grandparent is missing. Google is doing this because it exhausted all options of appeal and was forced to do this by law. I have no doubt that Google doesn't like being told what it can or cannot show in its search results.
    - kybernetikos 12y ago
      Reluctant seems perfectly cromulent here. Pretty much any definition includes 'unwilling', and the word itself in its original form contains the image of struggling against something. In some ways it's more appropriate than your options, because it implies that Google is fighting the implementation of the law as far as it can.
ghshephard 12y ago
It was a poor article - casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship. Careful reading of the entire article places the blame on where it's supposed to be - the Law - but the fact that the article kept calling out Google, when it should have been repeatedly mentioning the law that Google was complying with, was problematic.
- justicezyx 12y ago
  Interesting, I have no such feeling of 'casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship'.
  - cbhl 12y ago
    Try reading more casually... such as just the headline.
    - slgeorge 12y ago
      So now we're excusing the inability to actually pay attention and read the article _as it is_! Poor comprehension isn't the articles problem.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Title, Introduction, First Paragraph read as follows: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not Google When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide. My Rewrite: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been required removed by law. Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not the government. When you search someone from within the EU, you no longer see what might be the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.

by mccr8 12y ago

kjksf 12y ago

Google doesn't have to be "exonerated" of anything because all they do is comply with (absurd) law. And the article does imply the blame lies with Google way too many times.

dingdingdang 12y ago
> And the article does imply the blame lies with Google way too many times. No, it certainly does not: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship."
- eloff 12y ago
  You guys are all right and wrong at the same time. The article both blames and exonerates Google. Depending on what quotes you pick you can support a case for either. The people who are saying it shouldn't blame Google are right, Google is just complying with the law. That the article is inconsistent with where it's laying the blame, is the fault of sloppy journalism.
- jamesbritt 12y ago
  "Reluctant" is an odd choice of words though. It suggests Google had some possible option to refuse. "Unwilling" or "legally obligated" might describe it better. It's hard not to see this phrasing as an attempt to spread some culpability on to Google.
  - pooper 12y ago
    This is what the grandparent is missing. Google is doing this because it exhausted all options of appeal and was forced to do this by law. I have no doubt that Google doesn't like being told what it can or cannot show in its search results.
  - kybernetikos 12y ago
    Reluctant seems perfectly cromulent here. Pretty much any definition includes 'unwilling', and the word itself in its original form contains the image of struggling against something. In some ways it's more appropriate than your options, because it implies that Google is fighting the implementation of the law as far as it can.

ghshephard 12y ago

It was a poor article - casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship. Careful reading of the entire article places the blame on where it's supposed to be - the Law - but the fact that the article kept calling out Google, when it should have been repeatedly mentioning the law that Google was complying with, was problematic.

justicezyx 12y ago
Interesting, I have no such feeling of 'casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship'.
- cbhl 12y ago
  Try reading more casually... such as just the headline.
  - slgeorge 12y ago
    So now we're excusing the inability to actually pay attention and read the article _as it is_! Poor comprehension isn't the articles problem.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Title, Introduction, First Paragraph read as follows: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not Google When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide. My Rewrite: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been required removed by law. Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not the government. When you search someone from within the EU, you no longer see what might be the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.