6 ms·

Because it is censorship, to the definition. It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past.

Because it is censorship, to the definition. It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past. Besides, at the volume at which the requests have poured in, even Google has limited time and resources to fight each request in court. It's unrealistic to expect them to actually fight any takedown individually when the entire idea is absurd. Yes, I added my opinion at the end there.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past" I think the difference is that newspapers probably never would have printed half the stuff people want removed in the first place. You would also be able to sue a newspaper and have corrections printed. Probably not as easy with online content if posted anonymously. I think a big part of the problem is the different attitudes to free speech around the world. In the US it is top priority. In the UK people are legally punished for posting harassing or threatening messages on social media. In France/Germany there are laws are speech on the holocaust and anti-Semitism. I think free speech is important but I also think we can regulate it to a point and that's not an attitude that would fly in some countries, particularly the US (my opinion is changing slightly as it become more and more obvious we can't trust our governments). The internet being a global thing we are going to face these problems more and more.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Actually, the whole legal issue started with a case of mr. Mario Costeja González wanting to remove a google search that returned news that was printed in a newspaper, and after suing the newspaper no corrections were printed and the article wasn't recalled as it was truthful, non-anonymous, etc. The newspaper article is still available in the archives, but Google has been given an order to hide it from people. It's not a hypothetical issue - the "anonymous online speech" is a red herring as the very first censored link was removing a link to a truthful newspaper article, and the BBC removed links are again censoring undisputed respectable news article history.
vertex-four 12y ago
> It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past. Except that before the Internet was a thing, in general, if you did something that got you in the newspaper five years ago, nobody would remember it when you're applying for a job or networking or somehow get in the news again, doubly so if you moved town. These days, it's likely that if you were in the news once, that baggage is likely to be attached to you forever; it can quite literally ruin your life. That's quite a massive difference if you ask me.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  Which enabled many a serial con man to milk people indefinitely. Yes, there are disadvantages to easy access to information like this. There are advantages as well, though.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  So what's the end game where everyone has that level of "dirt" on them? Doesn't it become a lot less extraordinary (and therefore, a lot less "life ruining") if everyone's publicly-documented bad behavior is accessible? FWIW, I see this as blatant censorship.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Except that that isn't the case. Not nearly everyone ends up getting written about in a blog or a newspaper, as much as that might be the case in your social circle. However, some not-insignificant amount of people do.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      The amount of writing and access to that writing has only gone up over time, and that's almost universally seen as a net positive. I just don't see the positive in a world where actions don't have consequences since the collective unconscious can be selectively edited by legislative meddling. The idea of a "right to be forgotten" is so fundamentally alien to me, as someone who fundamentally believes in the rights of freedom of speech and free access to infofrmation, as if the subject of a given piece of information somehow has ownership of it, rather than the person who created it.
anigbrowl 12y ago
It's very different. Searching an archive takes time and effort. Using a search engine takes virtually none.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past" I think the difference is that newspapers probably never would have printed half the stuff people want removed in the first place. You would also be able to sue a newspaper and have corrections printed. Probably not as easy with online content if posted anonymously. I think a big part of the problem is the different attitudes to free speech around the world. In the US it is top priority. In the UK people are legally punished for posting harassing or threatening messages on social media. In France/Germany there are laws are speech on the holocaust and anti-Semitism. I think free speech is important but I also think we can regulate it to a point and that's not an attitude that would fly in some countries, particularly the US (my opinion is changing slightly as it become more and more obvious we can't trust our governments). The internet being a global thing we are going to face these problems more and more.

PeterisP 12y ago
Actually, the whole legal issue started with a case of mr. Mario Costeja González wanting to remove a google search that returned news that was printed in a newspaper, and after suing the newspaper no corrections were printed and the article wasn't recalled as it was truthful, non-anonymous, etc. The newspaper article is still available in the archives, but Google has been given an order to hide it from people. It's not a hypothetical issue - the "anonymous online speech" is a red herring as the very first censored link was removing a link to a truthful newspaper article, and the BBC removed links are again censoring undisputed respectable news article history.

vertex-four 12y ago

> It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past. Except that before the Internet was a thing, in general, if you did something that got you in the newspaper five years ago, nobody would remember it when you're applying for a job or networking or somehow get in the news again, doubly so if you moved town. These days, it's likely that if you were in the news once, that baggage is likely to be attached to you forever; it can quite literally ruin your life. That's quite a massive difference if you ask me.

vonmoltke 12y ago
Which enabled many a serial con man to milk people indefinitely. Yes, there are disadvantages to easy access to information like this. There are advantages as well, though.
Karunamon 12y ago
So what's the end game where everyone has that level of "dirt" on them? Doesn't it become a lot less extraordinary (and therefore, a lot less "life ruining") if everyone's publicly-documented bad behavior is accessible? FWIW, I see this as blatant censorship.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  Except that that isn't the case. Not nearly everyone ends up getting written about in a blog or a newspaper, as much as that might be the case in your social circle. However, some not-insignificant amount of people do.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The amount of writing and access to that writing has only gone up over time, and that's almost universally seen as a net positive. I just don't see the positive in a world where actions don't have consequences since the collective unconscious can be selectively edited by legislative meddling. The idea of a "right to be forgotten" is so fundamentally alien to me, as someone who fundamentally believes in the rights of freedom of speech and free access to infofrmation, as if the subject of a given piece of information somehow has ownership of it, rather than the person who created it.

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's very different. Searching an archive takes time and effort. Using a search engine takes virtually none.