4 ms·

I always find it amusing when the Streisand Effect kicks in. Before his case, I suspect that a vanishingly small number of people were aware of González's forec

I always find it amusing when the Streisand Effect kicks in. Before his case, I suspect that a vanishingly small number of people were aware of González's foreclosure. These days it makes its way to news articles across the world and a Wikipedia article.

rmc 12y ago
The result may not be good for him, since it inverts the original goal. However many other people will benefit from this judgement, and be able to excercise the right to be forgotten.
nraynaud 12y ago
yes, some people take one for the group. Not everybody act only by personal interest.
saalweachter 12y ago
This goes back to the "careless newspapers" comment someone else made: why do articles feel the need to keep naming the plaintiff? How does knowing the name of the guy and his past financial troubles improve my understanding of the situation over, say, referring to him as "a Spanish citizen..."? It's kind of a dick move. It's not necessary to publish his name and you have reason to believe he doesn't want his name publicized like this so the only reason I can see for publishing his name constantly is a weird sort of professional-caste vendetta against him by newspapers, since his beef was also with them.
- bobcostas55 12y ago
  This guy single-handedly created a brand new and widely abused way for governments to censor the internet. And your reaction is to feel sorry for him? Anyone with the slightest respect for free speech and freedom of expression should have a vendetta against him. Fuck him.
matt4077 12y ago
The online community's infatuation with the 'Streisand Effect' is somewhat thoughtless. The mechanism annihilates the power of the law, by making any attempt to get justice subject to the approval of the online mob. Sure, it's a feel-good story when some celebrity suffering from affluentia is the subject. But why shouldn't Mr. Gonzalez have the right to try to clear his name? Is trust in the court system so low that we're happy when they are replaced by collective judgement by people who decide based on whatever small slice of the truth they saw on Twitter?
- prof_hobart 12y ago
  When you say "clear his name", that suggests the story about him wasn't true. In which case, the site should be asked to remove the article as it would be libellous. My understanding of it though is that it's entirely true. It just happened a reasonably long time ago. I'm not sure why it's Google's job to censor queries about true stories on the grounds that they happened a few years ago.

rmc 12y ago

The result may not be good for him, since it inverts the original goal. However many other people will benefit from this judgement, and be able to excercise the right to be forgotten.

nraynaud 12y ago

yes, some people take one for the group. Not everybody act only by personal interest.

saalweachter 12y ago

This goes back to the "careless newspapers" comment someone else made: why do articles feel the need to keep naming the plaintiff? How does knowing the name of the guy and his past financial troubles improve my understanding of the situation over, say, referring to him as "a Spanish citizen..."? It's kind of a dick move. It's not necessary to publish his name and you have reason to believe he doesn't want his name publicized like this so the only reason I can see for publishing his name constantly is a weird sort of professional-caste vendetta against him by newspapers, since his beef was also with them.

bobcostas55 12y ago
This guy single-handedly created a brand new and widely abused way for governments to censor the internet. And your reaction is to feel sorry for him? Anyone with the slightest respect for free speech and freedom of expression should have a vendetta against him. Fuck him.

matt4077 12y ago

The online community's infatuation with the 'Streisand Effect' is somewhat thoughtless. The mechanism annihilates the power of the law, by making any attempt to get justice subject to the approval of the online mob. Sure, it's a feel-good story when some celebrity suffering from affluentia is the subject. But why shouldn't Mr. Gonzalez have the right to try to clear his name? Is trust in the court system so low that we're happy when they are replaced by collective judgement by people who decide based on whatever small slice of the truth they saw on Twitter?

prof_hobart 12y ago
When you say "clear his name", that suggests the story about him wasn't true. In which case, the site should be asked to remove the article as it would be libellous. My understanding of it though is that it's entirely true. It just happened a reasonably long time ago. I'm not sure why it's Google's job to censor queries about true stories on the grounds that they happened a few years ago.