Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by will_brown » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 1:28 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #213

will_brown wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

That link doesn’t support your contention Trump was personally responsible, in fact it says:

>It’s not fair to put all the blame on Trump for the four bankruptcies because he’s acting as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy, said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University.

And basically supports what what I suggest:

>He added that people typically wouldn’t personally blame former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or investor Warren Buffett for individual failures within their investment companies, Bain Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, respectively.

Despite the fact the guy pretends to be self-made (he isn’t), there is something to be said for someone who took a $10M loan from his father and turned it into a $1B+ Business empire. Sure there have been some individual business failures along the way (which his ego barely allows him to acknowledge), but it pretty funny SV with its ethos of not being afraid to fail and iterating, is so petty they extend 4 business bankruptcies (which were all chapter 11 reorganization’s) onto the man personally, but would never dare put that type of standard on SV investors (just as the article you linked suggests).

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

#222

Post by _rpd » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

algem wrote: post #46

landryraccoon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is forgetting the default instead of remembering? You assume that it's better for all of us if we default forget, but that's probably not how you treat your own information, or what you know about others. Isn't more transparency a good thing? Do the government, public figures, elected figures, law enforcement, your doctor and those who provide you medical care have the right to force you to forget everything abou…

so when you forgive someone you never forget? Sure you list some good examples to remember but there are far more reasons to forget. To remember should be meaningful. Should anything other people believe to be bad always be remembered of you? If this was the case everyone would hate everyone.

Perhaps those who wish to be 'forgotten' should obtain permission from those that they have injured.

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

#223

Post by the_watcher » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 1:35 AM UTC

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…

> Google CANNOT become our only source of truth.

Agreed. That said, should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be deleted from Google?

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

#224

Post by nradov » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

astura wrote: post #194

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.

Seems like a very dangerous road to go down. My parents abused me, however, they were never convicted of a crime in a court of law because nobody ever reported them. The statue of limitations has almost certainly passed by now so they are unable to be convicted. Are you suggesting it should be illegal for me to say that my parents abused me? Same with Bill Cosby's accusers, the statue of limitations has passed on all…

I think losteric was proposing a confidentiality rule that would only apply to the government, not to private citizens.

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

#225

Post by dhimes » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

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…

This happens even if found innocent- it happened to a friend of mine. Devastating.

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

#226

Post by spunker540 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

guelo wrote: post #182

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?

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.

The problem isn’t that the content exists- it’s that google surfaces it.

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

#227

Post by amarkov » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

vogre wrote: post #102

skylark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "right to be forgotten" law has larger scope than that actually, although I'm definitely not a lawyer. > After a request is filled, their removals team reviews the request, weighing "the individual's right to privacy against the public's right to know", deciding if the website is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed". https:/…

Why the team in google has right to decide whether someone's privacy is worth more or less than some public interest?

Because someone has to. We can't have a world where I can just declare any search result violates my privacy, and Google isn't allowed to say I'm wrong.

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

#228

Post by anoncoward7780 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

spoken like a person with no history. Imagine youre in college and everyone sees you according to the construct of who you "appeared" in grammar school, or for that matter High school. It's like that. You should have the right to have to dumb stuff you did in college,or high school to not follow you forever. If you're not an adult already (30+ years)then you'll understand this eventually. We see the world and others as a mirror of ourselves. It's also telling that the first place you went to was the land of criminal intent. By the way child molesters are a legal situation different from Google's search engine. They HAVE TO BY LAW announce themselves when moving to a new location. They HAVE TO BY LAW appear on child molester website list. Those are separate from Google's search engine. You will still be able to go to www.lawwebsite.com and "find a pedo". sheesh.

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

#229

Post by dhimes » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

In the early days of Google they had a press conference. I don't recall the specifics- probably about when they announced having indexed 1B pages on the web. There was concern about privacy. To make a point, a reporter started reading some of the personal things she had learned about said Google CEO(s) from their search engine.

Those pages (sorry) were not available in Google the following day.

So, yeah. They know how important it is personally. First hand.

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

#230

Post by anoncoward7780 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

losteric wrote: post #40

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

Do you understand the Diff between a search engine and "Public Record"? "knowledge is power, and search engines are the map". Hey kid, there's a whole world out there that's not your google. Libraries have books, City Hall has public records. How about get off your butt and learn how real research is done. Hint: it's not on facebook, google, or twitter.