4 ms·

This is a straw man, the laws are much more specific in what they would forget.

Kalium 12y ago
It removes entire articles from the public consciousness. There's no "remove this section". There's not even the accountability to tell the publications what's being removed and who wants it gone. It's power without responsibility, accountability, or sane restraints.
PeterisP 12y ago
The original article contains an actual example from BBC of how "specific" they are - a valid news article was censored because of a complaint about a comment to that article. It's not a misinformed hypothesis of what might somehow happen, it's something that has already happened. This is not a straw man. Either the laws aren't as specific as you expect, or they aren't applied as specifically as you expect - censoring an article if there is absolutely nothing wrong within the actual article is certainly not specific enough.
- barsoap 12y ago
  The article wasn't censored, it just doesn't show up any more when you search for the name of the commenter. It still shows up when you search for the name of the banker that was the subject of the article, the name of the bank, or any other keywords you can find it with: All that has been eradicated is the searchable connection between the commenter's name and that article.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    We didn't destroy the book! We just ruled you can't keep it on a shelf where it's topical and someone might find it.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      We didn't destroy the book! We just ruled you can't keep it on a shelf under the name of one of the reviewers - but everywhere else you want to keep it is fine.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        As I said - a place where it's topical and someone might find it.
        barsoap 12y ago
        Yes, it might be topical, and I have a strong inkling that says that it's a case google shouldn't have accepted. They seem to be taking more down than is required of them. But it's also a far cry from "banker censors report about his malpractice": The banker most definitely would not be allowed to do that under the law in question.
        Kalium 12y ago
        We're talking about a law that has had misuse baked into it from its very inception. So far, I've yet to see anything to convince me that there are any valid uses of this law. Just censorship.
        barsoap 12y ago
        The original case was a 16-year old newspaper article about a bankruptcy (but no fraud or such) that showed up as first result on a google search for a Spaniard's name, which impacted his employment prospects and such. Hence why it's called "right to forget". People didn't have easy access to such data ten years ago, either, and the world provably didn't collapse. What this is battling is a new thing: The eternal online pillory, knowing neither restraint, remorse, nor forgiveness... nor research costs.
        Kalium 12y ago
        Ah, "right to forget". How lovely and Orwellian. Instead of "right to censor", which is what it is. What this is battling is people who can't cope with the world changing. Too bad for them. No sympathy here.

It removes entire articles from the public consciousness. There's no "remove this section". There's not even the accountability to tell the publications what's being removed and who wants it gone. It's power without responsibility, accountability, or sane restraints.

PeterisP 12y ago

The original article contains an actual example from BBC of how "specific" they are - a valid news article was censored because of a complaint about a comment to that article. It's not a misinformed hypothesis of what might somehow happen, it's something that has already happened. This is not a straw man. Either the laws aren't as specific as you expect, or they aren't applied as specifically as you expect - censoring an article if there is absolutely nothing wrong within the actual article is certainly not specific enough.

barsoap 12y ago
The article wasn't censored, it just doesn't show up any more when you search for the name of the commenter. It still shows up when you search for the name of the banker that was the subject of the article, the name of the bank, or any other keywords you can find it with: All that has been eradicated is the searchable connection between the commenter's name and that article.
- Kalium 12y ago
  We didn't destroy the book! We just ruled you can't keep it on a shelf where it's topical and someone might find it.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    We didn't destroy the book! We just ruled you can't keep it on a shelf under the name of one of the reviewers - but everywhere else you want to keep it is fine.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      As I said - a place where it's topical and someone might find it.
      - barsoap 12y ago
        Yes, it might be topical, and I have a strong inkling that says that it's a case google shouldn't have accepted. They seem to be taking more down than is required of them. But it's also a far cry from "banker censors report about his malpractice": The banker most definitely would not be allowed to do that under the law in question.
        Kalium 12y ago
        We're talking about a law that has had misuse baked into it from its very inception. So far, I've yet to see anything to convince me that there are any valid uses of this law. Just censorship.
        barsoap 12y ago
        The original case was a 16-year old newspaper article about a bankruptcy (but no fraud or such) that showed up as first result on a google search for a Spaniard's name, which impacted his employment prospects and such. Hence why it's called "right to forget". People didn't have easy access to such data ten years ago, either, and the world provably didn't collapse. What this is battling is a new thing: The eternal online pillory, knowing neither restraint, remorse, nor forgiveness... nor research costs.
        Kalium 12y ago
        Ah, "right to forget". How lovely and Orwellian. Instead of "right to censor", which is what it is. What this is battling is people who can't cope with the world changing. Too bad for them. No sympathy here.