To focus on something else: I'm incredulous that people believe we have the "right" to be forgotten. Maybe it's just that I've grown up being told everything I do will be recorded forever and never forgotten, and my behavior has changed as a result? But I truly don't feel as if we have any kind of right to be forgotten.
EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
51–60 of 77 posts
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#52It won't take long before a UK search for Dougie McDonald shows the article talking about how the articles about Dougie McDonald have been removed from Google, and what those articles are about. Google tells the media which articles are being expunged, the media writes about the articles Google expunged and then Google indexes these pages in their search results. Interesting process.
That process is happening right now, and it is interesting. But will it continue, aka is it a viable long term workaround? Articles being removed is new and in a sense exciting for the press, Google, and the public- that probably won't be so in a few months or years.
Maybe every media company should have a summary page for each of their articles that have been removed from Google. And Google should prioritize those summary pages in its searches.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#53This is, among other things, a terribly confusing situation. Who's to blame? The person who asks to have results expunged? The law that requires Google to comply? Google for complying? Or no one—is the right thing being done, the "pen" of the Internet being dulled back into a pencil?
> The person who asks to have results expunged? Yes. > The law that requires Google to comply? Yes. > Google for complying? No! How can you blame a company for doing something they are legally compelled to do? > Or no one—is the right thing being done, the "pen" of the Internet being dulled back into a pencil? The Internet has always been written in pencil. Pages stop being served all the time. The only difference is…
> How can you blame a company for doing something they are legally compelled to do?
They're not legally compelled to take action on every request they get. It's just that it's too expensive to look at each request individually.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put down your Google pitchfork. The article is clearly not placing the blame on Google: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship." The second paragraph says this is the result of a court ruling. If the most concerning thing to you about this article is that it doesn't spend enough time exonerating Google for their role in this, then I don't know what to tel…
It was a poor article - casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship. Careful reading of the entire article places the blame on where it's supposed to be - the Law - but the fact that the article kept calling out Google, when it should have been repeatedly mentioning the law that Google was complying with, was problematic.
Interesting, I have no such feeling of 'casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship'.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#55To focus on something else: I'm incredulous that people believe we have the "right" to be forgotten. Maybe it's just that I've grown up being told everything I do will be recorded forever and never forgotten, and my behavior has changed as a result? But I truly don't feel as if we have any kind of right to be forgotten.
I actually disagree. We live in a world where so much of what we do is recorded permanently, and that's a very new thing. I absolutely support the idea that we have a right to be forgotten.
This execution, however, is absolutely awful.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#56I wonder what the effect would be if everyone submitted removal requests for all articles on prominent politicians (let's take the UK Prime Minister David Cameron as an example).
Methinks the law would be quickly changed. Especially with an election coming up next year.
Of course I am in no way encouraging anyone to do this, or condoning such behaviour.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the article does imply the blame lies with Google way too many times. No, it certainly does not: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship."
"Reluctant" is an odd choice of words though. It suggests Google had some possible option to refuse. "Unwilling" or "legally obligated" might describe it better. It's hard not to see this phrasing as an attempt to spread some culpability on to Google.
This is what the grandparent is missing. Google is doing this because it exhausted all options of appeal and was forced to do this by law. I have no doubt that Google doesn't like being told what it can or cannot show in its search results.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a poor article - casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship. Careful reading of the entire article places the blame on where it's supposed to be - the Law - but the fact that the article kept calling out Google, when it should have been repeatedly mentioning the law that Google was complying with, was problematic.
Interesting, I have no such feeling of 'casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship'.
Try reading more casually... such as just the headline.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#59We should simply provide a searchable resource to add and record the 'removed' articles. Not a search engine. Simply a searchable list.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The person who asks to have results expunged? Yes. > The law that requires Google to comply? Yes. > Google for complying? No! How can you blame a company for doing something they are legally compelled to do? > Or no one—is the right thing being done, the "pen" of the Internet being dulled back into a pencil? The Internet has always been written in pencil. Pages stop being served all the time. The only difference is…
> How can you blame a company for doing something they are legally compelled to do? They're not legally compelled to take action on every request they get. It's just that it's too expensive to look at each request individually.
How is that not compelling?
They have three choices. One leads to censorship, the other two lead to bankruptcy. Choose.