The deliberate misrepresentation and/or willful ignorance about what the "right to be forgotten" means is pathetic. I really expect better from HN, regardless o

The deliberate misrepresentation and/or willful ignorance about what the "right to be forgotten" means is pathetic. I really expect better from HN, regardless of whether people agree with it or not. Just some points: - Politicians, public figures, celebrities and any kind of information that is the public or historic interest does not fall under the right to be forgotten. - Corporations, governments etcetera do not fall under the right to be forgotten. - There is no DMCA-like process. This notion is the result of Google's disinformation campaign and the deliberately flawed process Google implemented, like a child throwing a tantrum. - This has nothing to do with censorship. There is nothing pre-emptive about it. Individuals have to actively make each and every request. Any request for removal can be taken all the way up the legal chain. Yes, there is a chilling effect risk in the implementation of the right to be forgotten. Possibly to the point where the right itself needs a much clearer definition. Possibly even to the point where the conclusion is that it is impossible to implement without harmful side effects that outweigh the benefits. Those are valid discussions. But so far I've seen very little of that discussion on HN, just a lot of FUD and outright BS.