3 ms·
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
by 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 agodon't confuse logic with politics! :)
- WiseWeasel 12y agoSince 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.