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

211–220 of 334 posts

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

#211

Post by IAmEveryone »

Clubber wrote: post #192
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…

There should be an exclusion for public figures. We have plenty of exclusions for them regarding privacy already.

There is.

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

#212

Post by bringtheaction »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #138
bussierem wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't agree that this will protect anyone, or that they need to be protected in the first place. This is just hiding the problem that someone would judge you for whatever the content is. You can't deny that the advent of social media has brought about a MUCH bigger problem of people getting fired, judged, or their lives ruined by stupid mistakes, posts online of a single comment they made, etc. These things aren't…

By that same token, it's much easier to discover who the real idiots, bigots, assholes, etc. are, and then to apply appropriate social sanctions. It may suck for some people, but if we keep these people visible, then eventually maybe there will be fewer of them.

Everyone can make stupid mistakes, and the amount of repercussions that you can end up with can be really small or really big regardless of the actual significance of what you said or what you did, because the world does not hold a single, consistent set of morals and opinions, nor are we good at passing judgement in a fair and consistent manner.

Furthermore, context matters, but context is the first thing that gets lost online.

Something that was said or done in one context can be perfectly fine in that context while at the same time that thing can be completely unacceptable in another context.

We need not and we should not strive to keep a record of everything. It is important that we are able to forget.

The world at large is not capable of ensuring due process. Real lives of innocent people are ruined. People are driven to suicide. All because the public formed a narrative about someone based on incomplete or otherwise inaccurate information.

I wish for compassion and forgiveness.

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

#213

Post by nl »

will_brown wrote: post #83
sumeno wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you attribute the recent Toys R Us bankruptcy to individual owners? I wouldn't attribute it to the owners of individual stores, but the CEO? Absolutely > Or if your favorite startup goes under and has to declare bankruptcy to shield itself from creditors before the company dissolves would you start attributing bankruptcy to individual employees with equity/stock options? Trump wasn't an individual employee wi…

It should be noted im not sticking up for Trump, just addressing the idea of attributing a company bankruptcy to company owners as if they personally filed bankruptcy, as done by OP. Still if you want to attribute the bankruptcies of companies to Trump personally because he was CEO...post a link, because I don’t think Trump was an employee of these companies at all, much less responsible for day to day operations of…

He was personally responsible for the decisions in at least 2 of the 4 bankruptcies, but the other 2 are more debatable.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/...

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

#214

Post by hyperpape »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #76
ballenf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you need to know about their parking tickets or embezzlement, though? Or that time they partied too hard 25 years ago? Outside of specific circumstances, having every mistake you've ever made accessible at a glance is not really good for society.

I can understand the case for allowing someone to have their speeding tickets forgotten, but if you believe that, the correct response is that the government shouldn’t publish speeding tickets.

(I could be wrong, but I think parking tickets are aren’t published in the US, while speeding tickets are).

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

#215

Post by IAmEveryone »

ballenf wrote: post #7

It seems strange to me that a New York based journalism institution didn't use the plaintiffs real names. On what basis do you suppose they decided to honor EU/English law?

The NYT is just practicing what Google is claiming to be: journalism.

The petitioners' names are irrelevant to the story. Yet publishing them would obviously harm them. It's an easy call.

Good journalists don't operate by a fundamentalist "information wants to be free" paradigm. They don't print gruesome photos of car accidents, lists of who is gay or not, leaked names of FBI informants in the mafia, or the Secretary of State's private phone number.

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

#216

Post by curt15 »

bringtheaction wrote: post #204
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…

> If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. “Just delete it”. Except have you ever personally been in the situation that you needed something removed? I have and: 1) You might not even have the password to every random account you created in the past, nor the e-mail addresses that you used when you created those profiles,…

>They do not respond to DMCA notices.

But Google does cooperate with DMCA. The difference there is that that content deemed in violation of copyright is actually illegal for anyone to distribute; legal responsibility extends all the way to the website owner.

Unless content falling under "right to be forgotten" is ruled privileged and not legal for public distribution, any artificial roadblocks to their discovery will merely present a business opportunity for their circumvention.

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

#217

Post by fouc »

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 think you have a point that "right to be forgotten" could be abused to censor the truth.

But at the same time, perhaps there needs to be a way to de-emphasize older truths? For example if Alice did something 10-20 years ago, should that appear in the first page of the search results? Perhaps it should be ranked lower due to age.

Perhaps search engines could have a memory system similar to humans. Older stuff is gradually forgotten or de-emphasized or turn blurry.

A humane memory system.

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

#218

Post by dabockster »

fouc wrote: post #217
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 think you have a point that "right to be forgotten" could be abused to censor the truth. But at the same time, perhaps there needs to be a way to de-emphasize older truths? For example if Alice did something 10-20 years ago, should that appear in the first page of the search results? Perhaps it should be ranked lower due to age. Perhaps search engines could have a memory system similar to humans. Older stuff is gra…

> Perhaps search engines could have a memory system similar to humans. Older stuff is gradually forgotten or de-emphasized or turn blurry.

I think this is what is in mind in terms of a "right to be forgotten". Not the large things, but the small bullet points from 10+ years ago that, in a sane world, would be completely ludicrous to compare with your current self.

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

#219

Post by lhorie »

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…

If you are specifically searching for child molesters, you can find that information in other databases without necessarily searching for specific names. If it really matters, e.g. for a job, you'd want to be checking their criminal record, not google.

If someone searches for your name, google has no way of determining if they are looking for your LinkedIn profile or reports of alleged criminal activity from you, nor does it have journalistic resources to determine if said reports are accurate or to edit them in light of new data.

It's already possible to game google into indexing fake testimonials for scam purposes, as well as push old results off with a barrage of recent activity. Bad actors can always find ways to misdirect and deleting is only but one way. Isn't it fine that delisting just remains astronomically more laborious to do as the volume of reports of badness increase?

Siding with google seems more like a passive aggressive way of getting an ego massage out of "punishing" things one does not like, but it kinda throws out the baby with the bath water.

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

#220

Post by grigjd3 »

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…

As much as I don't like this, a lot of people don't know how to acquire information online outside of google and Facebook.
Post reply on HN