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

Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#31

Post by outside1234 »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #13
B-Con wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just make it hard to find all the instances. For example, this article itself references the content in the article that was removed from search results. The effectiveness of having the original link removed is probably very minimal unless this page is also removed. Ultimately, it's a race. The "hider" has to find all the things they want hidden and explicitly list them. As long as the content spreads faster than…

It's just weird that the search engine is tasked with the removal. If other sites can legally link to the "forgotten" content - which appears to still be online - then why can't a search engine link to it? If they want this ruling to make sense at all, the removal requests should go directly to the entity hosting the content in my opinion.

don't confuse logic with politics! :)

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#32

Post by josephlord »

gadders wrote: post #7

The EU really is a joke. I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid.

I think there are games being played here. The European Court ruled that some things should be made harder to find (revenge porn, obvious slander, spent convictions etc.).

Google don't want to do this and are trying to make a mockery of the ruling removing from the results anything that they are asked to as long as it is about a person with the very aim of stirring a backlash against the ruling. Requests to take down important stories from major news organisations are the perfect way to do this provided that they keep the blame on the EU not on their implementation.

I haven't read the ruling but I'm pretty sure that there is some leeway for judgement and for Google to have a process to decide on these cases rather than having to comply with every single request.

I would need to understand the ruling better to come down with a full view about whether it is right or not. On the one hand Google's results can cause a lot of damage and they should carry some responsibility for them on the other legitimate stories of real public interest and information about serious wrongdoing shouldn't be censored.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#33

Post by troels »

privong wrote: post #21
gadders wrote: post #7

The EU really is a joke. I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid.

> I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid. The difficulty with following that logic is in the blurry middle area. Where is the line drawn and who makes that decision?

For starters, they could require a court order for each case. That would certainly limit the amount of requests.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#34

Post by cwyers »

eli wrote: post #26
cwyers wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see how it would be contempt of court for Google to shut down its European servers and redirect all its European domains to go to Google.com. It would be a lot of other things, but I don't think it would be contempt of court.

The court ordered Google Inc to remove certain listings. They did not specify "only on certain TLDs" or "only from certain servers." Including them in search results is violating the court order. I guess if Google pulled out of the EU entirely, closing all European subsidiaries, relocating employees and removing all assets, then they could make a case that the court no longer has jurisdiction... that seems like it'd…

As the Guardian notes, Google.com still has the results that Google.co.uk has removed:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-righ...

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#35

Post by eli »

magicalist wrote: post #27
eli wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court ordered Google Inc to remove certain listings. They did not specify "only on certain TLDs" or "only from certain servers." Including them in search results is violating the court order. I guess if Google pulled out of the EU entirely, closing all European subsidiaries, relocating employees and removing all assets, then they could make a case that the court no longer has jurisdiction... that seems like it'd…

They still show the results on non-EU TLDs.

Why do you say that? The court's authority AFAIK had nothing to do with the TLD being used, but because Google Spain is within their jurisdiction.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#36

Post by keithpeter »

lotharbot wrote: post #8

This is a great example of the Streisand effect [0] -- trying to hide something draws attention to it. Specifically, I now know about Stan O'Neal, who "was forced out of Merrill [Lynch] after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made." Google may no longer be showing the original result, but now I see the reason for the original article and the fact that he wanted it hidden. [0]…

A Google UK search on Stan O'Neal from within the UK yields the wikipedia page, then at #2 a Salon article explaining how Google has given notice to Mr Peston that the original BBC article may be de-indexed. The next half dozen links are pretty critical of Mr O'Neal as well.

Oddly, this new BBC page is not apparent in the index (yet).

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#37

Post by jrlocke »

marti221 wrote: post #17
personZ wrote: post #3

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling. But its implementation of it looks odd, perhaps clumsy. I find it incredible that Google is held at fault in this case because they don't choose whether it is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" in a way that fits the author's view. Such an analysis is so absurdly subjective, and it is impossible for Google to satisfy both sides. The European Cour…

Couldn't of said it better myself.

It's "couldn't have" or perhaps "couldn't've" but it's certainly not "couldn't of". Interesting error born of an incorrect interpretation of phonetics.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#38

Post by [deleted] »

cwyers wrote: post #5
personZ wrote: post #3

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling. But its implementation of it looks odd, perhaps clumsy. I find it incredible that Google is held at fault in this case because they don't choose whether it is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" in a way that fits the author's view. Such an analysis is so absurdly subjective, and it is impossible for Google to satisfy both sides. The European Cour…

Unless Google wants to treat the EU like they did China and redirect all searches to a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms, they're doing all they can here.

[deleted]

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#39

Post by kjjw »

personZ wrote: post #3

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling. But its implementation of it looks odd, perhaps clumsy. I find it incredible that Google is held at fault in this case because they don't choose whether it is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" in a way that fits the author's view. Such an analysis is so absurdly subjective, and it is impossible for Google to satisfy both sides. The European Cour…

Interesting to think that it is in Google's interest to create a clumsy system that does not properly check requested deletions. Too many deletions that have no merit under the scheme will likely create a backlash, placing a negative highlight on the scheme to the average person on the street who will now start to read news article after news article about erroneous deletions.

What the EU is trying to do is likely impossible. But I can't help but think that their intentions are sound. For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record. Many governments would hide such a record after a certain time.

Post reply on HN