3 ms·

"The first removal was made public not by Google, with a clear breakdown of what was being delisted and why, but by prominent journalists reacting to alarming e

"The first removal was made public not by Google, with a clear breakdown of what was being delisted and why, but by prominent journalists reacting to alarming emails sent to their webmasters headed “Notice of removal from Google search”." I wonder if the author would really see it as benign if Google had published a complete breakdown of what was being delisted and why, instead of just emailing the content hosts. I think it would put Google at risk of being found in contempt of the court...

munificent 12y ago
> I think it would put Google at risk of being found in contempt of the court... I'm not a lawyer and don't speak for Google, but my understanding is that the regulation prevents you from telling anyone except the relevant parties when a link has been delisted. I think "relevant party" includes who the link is about and the webmaster that owns the link itself. It would kind of defeat the "right to be forgotten" if Google were to loudly publish a report saying, "Hey, everybody! Forget that Fred Smith did XYZ on this date!" The reason we know that some things were delisted was because the relevant parties were themselves journalists who then chose to publicize the fact. So, yes, if Google publicized all delistings, they would violate the legislation. This is something the author of the article certainly knows, so decrying Google for not doing it is disingenuous at best.