3 ms·

I think you misunderstand the intent. It's not about making people forget, but rather protecting second chances. At some point, a red mark on your internet acce

by byerley 12y ago

I think you misunderstand the intent. It's not about making people forget, but rather protecting second chances. At some point, a red mark on your internet accessible past may become akin to ethnicity/gender/ect. It doesn't necessarily reflect the person you are, but it's still statistically prudent for someone else to discriminate based on that information. This is part of why we have such strict regulations on credit reporting.

wyager 12y ago
>but rather protecting second chances. And third, and fourth, and fifth, and as many times as you can afford to make a legal hassle for someone, chances. The world isn't always super convenient, and extremely onerous legislation like this definitely won't help.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
yuhong 12y ago
I don't think things like this is the right solution to the problem, at best it is a workaround. I don't like anti-discrimination laws either BTW, but that is a different matter.
dclowd9901 12y ago
I misunderstand nothing: You don't have a right to second chances either. The world either decides to forgive you or it doesn't. It's not up to you, it's up to them. To impose such a right would be to try to force forgiveness in the minds of others, which, again, pretty clearly illustrates the problem.
- byerley 12y ago
  > You don't have a right to second chances You can argue that if you want. I'm personally of the opinion that people tend not to change much. However, you're giving a lot of power to people who probably shouldn't have it. Good luck trying to get anyone to enforce libel committed via blog/forum post. It should probably also be noted that getting a fresh start today is much harder than ever before in modern history. It will continue to get drastically worse as we perfect facial recognition. People may not have a right to second chances, but it's been the status quo for a very long time. > To impose such a right would be to try to force forgiveness in the minds of others Again, no. You're misunderstanding. No one is being asked (let alone forced) to forgive/forget. The poster of the original information has no inherent right to share it with everyone in the world, and the consumer of the search engine information has no inherent right to know everything that's ever been written/observed about a person. Obviously pushing the burden onto the search engines is pretty silly, but it's similarly obvious that the problem will get worse if it's ignored.

by byerley 12y ago

wyager 12y ago

>but rather protecting second chances. And third, and fourth, and fifth, and as many times as you can afford to make a legal hassle for someone, chances. The world isn't always super convenient, and extremely onerous legislation like this definitely won't help.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

yuhong 12y ago

I don't think things like this is the right solution to the problem, at best it is a workaround. I don't like anti-discrimination laws either BTW, but that is a different matter.

dclowd9901 12y ago

I misunderstand nothing: You don't have a right to second chances either. The world either decides to forgive you or it doesn't. It's not up to you, it's up to them. To impose such a right would be to try to force forgiveness in the minds of others, which, again, pretty clearly illustrates the problem.

byerley 12y ago
> You don't have a right to second chances You can argue that if you want. I'm personally of the opinion that people tend not to change much. However, you're giving a lot of power to people who probably shouldn't have it. Good luck trying to get anyone to enforce libel committed via blog/forum post. It should probably also be noted that getting a fresh start today is much harder than ever before in modern history. It will continue to get drastically worse as we perfect facial recognition. People may not have a right to second chances, but it's been the status quo for a very long time. > To impose such a right would be to try to force forgiveness in the minds of others Again, no. You're misunderstanding. No one is being asked (let alone forced) to forgive/forget. The poster of the original information has no inherent right to share it with everyone in the world, and the consumer of the search engine information has no inherent right to know everything that's ever been written/observed about a person. Obviously pushing the burden onto the search engines is pretty silly, but it's similarly obvious that the problem will get worse if it's ignored.