4 ms·

I'm not a fan of revisionist history.

• masklinn 12y ago
  Then you're no fan of history.
• kzrdude 12y ago
  Presumably the right to be forgotten is revoked when you die?
  • smsm42 12y ago
    Not necessarily. The estate would happily sue and prove that the descendants would suffer if certain unsavory details would come out, so they must never do. Just like copyrights and such are extended way past the life of the creator, so can be other privileges. As soon as we accept the premise that you own and can control what others think and tell about you, it does not have to stop with your death, just as any other things you own do not become unowned after you die - they just become part of your estate and then can be owned by whoever inherits it.
• vidarh 12y ago
  The decision does not require revisionist history - you are free to include whatever details you want in articles or books. The decision is limited to allowing an individual to have material that is not of sufficient public interest to be delinked from Google to reduce it's exposure. Presumably if you're of sufficient public interest to be the subject of works of history, you'd not even get it delinked.
• johnchristopher 12y ago
  There is a difference between denying that some events took place and removing them from a private index.