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

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#141

Post by krisgenre »

dap wrote: post #67
kjjw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 im…

> For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record. They could do that by avoiding judgment on a teenager with a critical record rather than not pretending like that record doesn't exist. And if the problem is that too many people are judging, then it's not true that society at large really does feel the same way about it. Give people facts,…

This should be the top comment!

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#142

Post by kintamanimatt »

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.

There's a difference between the EU and one particular court ruling. The EU itself is brilliant in many ways; this Stalinesque ruling, not so much.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#143

Post by gadders »

josephlord wrote: post #32
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…

I think if a conviction was reported in a newspaper when it happened, I don't think that should be removed from Google, even if the conviction is subsequently "spent". Do people go through newspaper archives deleting them from the (what used to be) microfiche copies?

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#144

Post by kjjw »

personZ wrote: post #56
kjjw wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.

The incentive Google has is to not get sued for contravening a lawful order of the European Court. I don't see what conspiratorial wagering adds (the implied notions of your first post were obvious to all). And be sure that every person with the means is going to exploit this immediately to expunge anything negative in their past. Google is in a position of being unable to decide what the European Court, or any other…

I get what you're saying but given that there has yet to be a fine issued under this scheme what you are describing is also wagering. I am doubtful about any commercial entity's good intentions when it comes to an opportunity to exploit a system to their benefit.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#145

Post by EGreg »

andrewfong wrote: post #108
lotsofmangos wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reporting facts themselves can sometimes be an IP issue in the US due to the "Hot News" doctrine.

The "hot news" doctrine is mostly dead these days.[1] And at worst, it delays wide-spread dissemination of news for a day, rather than suppress it outright. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/hot-news-doctrine-surv...

There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#146

Post by andrewfong »

EGreg wrote: post #145
andrewfong wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "hot news" doctrine is mostly dead these days.[1] And at worst, it delays wide-spread dissemination of news for a day, rather than suppress it outright. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/hot-news-doctrine-surv...

There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

From the linked article: "The United States rejected this doctrine in the 1991 United States Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service"

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#147

Post by keithpeter »

keithpeter wrote: post #36
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).

As of 1921 BST on 2014 July 3rd, the BBC article in question is now second link when searching for Stan O'Neal.

So you can ask for a page to be de-linked but if you are in the public eye and the de-linking gets noticed, the results may not be what you expected.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#148

Post by lilsunnybee »

nikatwork wrote: post #122
bsder wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, you kill me ... I needed a good laugh. Reality check. Look at the prevalence of tattoos. Think that the prejudice against that has diminished? As far as I can tell, it's gotten worse. Before, tattoos were sufficiently rare that if somebody had one who was applying for a job where they were unusual, they generally were given the benefit of the doubt (ex-serviceman, gang member who go…

Re: tattoos - maybe that's only a US thing. Visit any finance tower in Melbourne Docklands on casual Fridays and you will see plenty of the early 20s male staff with full sleeve tattoos on display. And I'd guess around 10% of the female staff have small neck or wrist tatts. Ten years ago that would have been completely verboten.

Yes sadly very common in the US. Many employee dress codes require "no visible tattoos", when unfairly penalizes excesses of youth, cultural differences, and people of lower socioeconomic status, who are unlikely to have funds available for tattoo removal.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#149

Post by exbbc »

magicalist wrote: post #138
exbbc wrote: post #78

Indeed it is clumsy because the media is exempt of this ruling. Which makes me suspect this was an easy way of drawing some media attention, and spreading misinformation.

The media is exempt from having to censor their own stories, but search engines are not exempt from removing links to media stories. The whole ruling was about forcing google to remove links to news stories about Costeja González.

No it wasn't about news stories from legitimate news organisations. This is all misinterpreted by people not knowing the facts nor the law, but lets ignore that and jump on the outrage bandwagon.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#150

Post by ewillbefull »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #139
ewillbefull wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the one hand Google's results can cause a lot of damage Public, factual information causes damage and Google is responsible because somebody else reported on it and they indexed it? And so Google should stop linking to the article which will still exist and can be found on other search engines in other jurisdictions without any effort? And we can pretend online censorship works all of a sudden now that the EU fo…

I wouldn't classify automatically generated results as expression.

So it's not a harm to freedom of expression if we allow your blog to exist, but we censor links to it because they're "automated"? It doesn't matter if it's automated or highly moderated. It's an expression and censoring anything like it influences the public discourse in some way.
Post reply on HN