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

181–190 of 334 posts

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

#181

Post by zeth___ »

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 should be considered WRITE ONLY. We should NOT remove content.

It isn't and it has never been.

Given that different countries have different laws and yet all claim to universal application of their laws can you imagine how many people would be killed because of this?

Atheists taken off planes form Arab Emirates flights because they posted about god. Homosexual activists getting assassinated by Russia. Europeans being arrested in the US because of the difference in age of consent.

The web is ephemeral and should be anonymous.

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

#182

Post by guelo »

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?

If Google didn't post it why would you go after Google? Tell whoever posted it or whoever is hosting it to take it down.

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

#183

Post by losteric »

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.

Publishing names and faces as established criminals is inherently contradictory with an impartial jury of your peers.

Faces, I can see that but journalists must be very explicit... "This is the suspect who allegedly did xyz".

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

#184

Post by wpietri »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22
darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

What's your alternative here? If people can eliminate data from search engines, what does it matter if something is nominally part of some unfindable public record?

It's not like this "right to be forgotten" will apply only to Google. If Google folds, all search engines will surely respect it.

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

#185

Post by Crontab »

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

I pretty much agree with you. The "right to be forgotten" may as well be called "the right to suppress information".

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

#186

Post by losteric »

shakna wrote: post #158
gray_-_wolf wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.

That information has already been dissiminated. And usually has a higher hit-rate than any correction. We know employers can and have discriminated against individuals where convictions have been overturned.

Relevancy is a problem that firmly falls under Google's responsibility... and businesses must be punished for discriminating over incomplete background checks.

However, I don't think the false conviction should be hidden - what if they were guilty and there's a crimes down the road? That information could be useful for the public.

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

#187

Post by zeth___ »

freeone3000 wrote: post #107
redler wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else mentioned on this thread, there's little distinction in search engine results between something that happened yesterday and something that happened 20 years ago. We now have the phenomenon of information no longer "aging". We've always had "news" to tell us what's, well, new. But over time that information would age. It would become harder to recall, and take more work to retrieve. A story on the even…

As someone whose first memories start after computers existed: This is ridiculous. People need to fix themselves. They need to adjust their values judgements, understand the purpose of 'last modified time', and adapt to the new world. Computers aren't going to become better at forgetting because a legislature or a court has decided they should.

Computers aren't the problem, search engines are.

There is nothing in the spec of a Turing machine that says "And this will remember what you did last Tuesday forever". It is a specific program that is written for a specific purpose. We have made the spam message network illegal to run I see no fundamental issue with extending this to other areas where it benefits society.

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

#188

Post by 1337biz »

losteric wrote: post #176
mynewtb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you want a US based Google where only US based content is ranked?

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

#189

Post by decebalus1 »

drngdds wrote: post #145

I'm glad the First Amendment keeps this nonsense from happening in the US.

Oh yes [1] how glad we all are. Also the fourth amendment which prevents the Patriot Act from happening. So glad of that one! Also, you may grab a read about the rest of the world. 'Free speech' is basically the norm.

[1] https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-g...

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

#190

Post by Retra »

ballenf wrote: post #17
darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

Seems like you're almost asking about others' right to know about a person's past crimes. So I'll ask it: Should I be able to google my children's friends' parents before I let them spend the night over there? I use this case because it wouldn't provide the basis of legal background check and presumably google would be my only source of info. Or does the right to be forgotten not apply to child abuse crimes?

Child abuse? If your child's friend's parent is a known child abuser, why do they have their own child staying with them? It shouldn't even come down to that. You should meet them maybe, or give your children a phone so they can contact you if something goes wrong. Or just don't worry about it so much in the first place.

Either way, I don't see why paranoia should be used as a driver of policy. You can "think of the children" all day long, but most of us have been children and remember it well enough to know we didn't need to be though of that much.

Post reply on HN