Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 334 posts

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#171

Post by mjevans »

mynewtb wrote: post #167
losteric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?

A prospective Eric could engage in some formal process to require distinctive detail be added to that 'accusation' so that it does not defame the Eric which did not drive drunk.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#172

Post by mjevans »

tannhauser23 wrote: post #150
losteric wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter solution: Outlaw publishing suspect names until after they are convicted. This model is used by other nations because regulating publications prevents both short and long-term harm while still preserving access to the truth.

This is not a universally adopted solution, and for good reason. Publishing the suspect's name/face as well as the details of the alleged crime encourages witnesses to come forward. Plus, from a free speech perspective, it seems crazy to criminalize the publishing of true information, especially when it directly relates to public safety and the government's exercise of its police powers.

Saying investigators are interested in the details surrounding individuals at the time of a crime (and presenting those individuals, not even as suspects, but merely as 'persons for which additional information is desired') is a truthful and accurate statement and does not assert any actual accusation of guilt. As such a fact it should be part of the public record regarding such a matter.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#173

Post by gsnedders »

oldcynic wrote: post #132
jasode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then? Since you're familiar with it, I'm curious how the following situations are handled... There was a famous rape case involving a Stanford student. His name is Brock Turner. If you search directly on keywords "Brock Turner"[1], the first results will be his rape conviction. I think it's logical to assume the Right To Be Forgotten wants the…

Well in the UK it would be based on sentence. I'm not sure of the usual severity of sentence for rape, but imprisonment is quite common and I think of a length to often never be spent. I think many would consider it a serious enough offence that you can't simply "move on" from it. Rape and murder probably should not be forgotten, bar room brawls at 19 probably should. The laws seem to try and have some awareness of t…

An interesting side note is that it is libellous to maliciously publish details of a spent conviction; truth is not a defence (though it is on the prosecution to prove that it was malicious, AFAIK).

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#174

Post by joe_the_user »

joshuamorton wrote: post #137
joe_the_user wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post above shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. "Right to be forgotten" laws apply as much to other sources of information as they do to Google. The discussion has become a bad version of "telephone", people responding to quotes in the parent rather than knowing anything about the issue in question. The question of whether one uses Google or other sources is irrelevant here. Sure, journalists could go…

No they don't. They explicitly don't apply to journalism. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. That's why people try to get things delisted from Google, because they can't get the original publisher to remove them.

Note: I should add "effectively apply" to my above post. If journalist articles can't be found on aggregators, they being effectively censored even if they are allowed to be published.

That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication.

If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it. Especially, this would impact a journal outside the "top 100" - Someone could conceivably search the 50 or 100 top publications but after that you need an aggregator. So essentially this would censor journalism.

And to my original point, it's not just about Google in particular since the alternative to Google is pretty much some other aggregator.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#175

Post by pmyteh »

lightbyte wrote: post #30
Heliosmaster wrote: post #21

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently. Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary. A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by…

It sounds like the actual problem is >This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. Hiding information from people sounds like a bandaid to the issue of people being overly judgemental. Maybe we need to be more accepting to rehabilitation.

There's precedent for this in some fields. The UK's Rehabilitation of Offenders Act prohibits asking about most old convictions in most circumstances precisely because it's better for society to give opportunities for ex-cons and yet most employers see a black mark on a record and run away.

I think it is a bandaid, but the proper solution would (1) require massive social engineering and (2) be really hard.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#176

Post by losteric »

mynewtb wrote: post #167
losteric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?

Contact the platform to demand removal. The porn industry has SOPs for dealing with this problem, I am not a lawyer but I imagine that process can be generalized and legally enforced

If that someone shared it on their own website, hosted out-of-country, on their own hardware... well, I can't do anything about that but i also wouldn't care. It's clearly non-authoritative and won't get SEO traction by itself.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#177

Post by Cacti »

lightbyte wrote: post #30
Heliosmaster wrote: post #21

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently. Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary. A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by…

It sounds like the actual problem is >This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. Hiding information from people sounds like a bandaid to the issue of people being overly judgemental. Maybe we need to be more accepting to rehabilitation.

Maybe instead of relying on humans to suddently act differently than they ever have in thousands of years, we could just remove the stupid link.

I mean, listen to yourself. Rather than an easy, technical solution, for a very limited and well defined problem, you're proposing we instead just wait until the billions upon billions of people on earth suddenly wise up, hit nirvana, sing Kum ba yah, and _be less judgemental_? So that, what, a giant, wealthy corporation isn't mildly bothered?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#178

Post by joshuamorton »

joe_the_user wrote: post #174
joshuamorton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. They explicitly don't apply to journalism. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. That's why people try to get things delisted from Google, because they can't get the original publisher to remove them.

Note: I should add "effectively apply" to my above post. If journalist articles can't be found on aggregators, they being effectively censored even if they are allowed to be published. That's the entire point of this. Right to be forgotten laws don't allow you to censor the intercept (a publication), but do allow you to force aggregators to remove the publication. If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever b…

>If you can prevent a journalists' article from ever being found, you have effectively censored it.

Oh this I 100% agree with. Information isn't information if it can't be found. (And noting that I'm employed by Google) I don't at all find the argument that "we can't prevent you from publishing something, but we can prevent it from being accessed" not compelling. Does it apply to newspaper anthologies or hard copy aggregation?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#179

Post by losteric »

mjevans wrote: post #170
losteric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

The web should be considered WRITE ONLY. We should NOT remove content. However, that doesn't mean that annotating content or making it more clear that a different (Firstname Lastname) did something might be a better response. For example, I have never created an account on facebook, linkedin, twitter, etc. I refuse to give any one company a defacto monopoly over social discourse and interaction; those tools belong on…

"the web" ... all of it? That seems impratical.

Immutable data structures have their place in programming, and immutable communication has it's place in society, but neither are appropriate for all use-cases.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#180

Post by EpicEng »

lightbyte wrote: post #30
Heliosmaster wrote: post #21

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently. Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary. A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by…

It sounds like the actual problem is >This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. Hiding information from people sounds like a bandaid to the issue of people being overly judgemental. Maybe we need to be more accepting to rehabilitation.

Good luck changing human nature. In the meantime, can I just get it off of google so I can get a job and pay my damn bills?

Your approach is of little comfort to the people this actually affects.

Post reply on HN