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

271–280 of 334 posts

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

#271

Post by thomasahle »

bussierem wrote: post #68
lightbyte wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. 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. In my opinion the…

>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…

> 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.

I only heard about this anecdotally. Do you have any data on such a huge increase in firings etc.? That would be quite interesting.

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

#273

Post by z3t4 »

kevsim wrote: post #256

I find it strange that the beef is with Google and not with the sites Google points at. Even if Google removes these search results, the articles are out there, probably linked from some other articles on the same newspaper's site, etc. This belief that removing from Google somehow makes it go away is odd.

Google index means life or death for many companies. If you can not be found on Google you basically don't exist.

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

#274

Post by gaius »

sakuronto wrote: post #267
gaius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because i…

Isn't this eerily close to a right to be forgiven, which is not at all a right? If you make a stupid mistake when you're young, then what's wrong with me judging you for the rest of your life? The Government shouldn't hide the knowledge from me because they think I ought to give you another chance, that should be up to me to decide.

By that argument the government shouldn’t allow you to have an anonymous nickname on a web forum either. You’re denying everyone their right to judge you, aren’t you?

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

#275

Post by ragequitta »

petre wrote: post #260
lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well maybe Eric shouldn't have "driven drunk"? Im not sure why search providers should be held accountable for protecting the carefully curated (false) reputations of individuals. All of the "right to be forgotten" arguments seem to devolve to "people shouldn't be able to know any data points that would negatively effect my social standings".

What if someone posts libelous information about Eric and uses SEO to make it show up on page 1 of Google's search results?

Even more troubling is deep fake technology that's run rampant. Should a serious director never hire Emma Watson again because she's such a prominent porn actress? Of course "we all know" that's fake. But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake?

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

#276

Post by nl »

will_brown wrote: post #221
nl wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sup…

Read the first two.

1) He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1990. By 1991, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities, so the business decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times. As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.

2) As a result of the bankruptcy, in exchange for easier terms on which to pay off the debts, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News. Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture -- he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations

He had a lot to do with those two.

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

#277

Post by DanBC »

greglindahl wrote: post #255
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?

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, tha…

> Europe doesn't have free speech, so, no problem.

No-where[1] has the US's extremist version of freedom of speech. Europe has a different form of free speech, and in this example Eric's right to be forgotton probably doesn't trump Someone's right to publish true information.

I guess there'd be some judicial attempt to balance these two rights: Does Eric pose a continuing risk to the public from drunk driving? Is Eric a public figure who's claimed to never have driven drunk? Was this a one off event that happened many years ago, never repeated? This would be something courts are able to decide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

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

#278

Post by DanBC »

dingo_bat wrote: post #242
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?

Take them to court. Or learn to accept it.

RTBF comes about because someone did exactly that, and the publisher ignored the court rulings.

I'm uneasy about some RTBF cases, but where you have a person making prolific publications across a variety of legal jurisdictions and ignoring the legal rulings (which happens in cases of stalking and harrassment, for example) it's impossible for the victim (and they do suffer real harm) to get justice other than asking search engines to de-index the attack pages.

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

#279

Post by geocar »

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? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten?

The right to erasure (right to be forgotten) does not protect this.

It refers to a very specific right that does have real limitations.

The ICO has written some specific guidance about this that might be helpful in your understanding.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

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

#280

Post by jmspring »

It's curious how the company that dedicated itself to "do no evil" to gain traction, has done evil and is seeking limits on this thing, yet in this community still jumps up and down on Microsoft every time it can, yet (agreed given it's past), hasn't shown the same level of social evil GOOG and FB have.
Post reply on HN