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

141–150 of 334 posts

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

#141

Post by acqq »

obmelvin wrote: post #129
acqq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should we eliminate it as a source of truth? From my point of view, Google eliminated itself long ago: it's already intentionally very biased, distorting the reality by design, different to every of its users: adjusting the "algorithm" to return to the seeker what the seeker would click the most and also what the Google's marketing would like to present, even to the point of intentionally ignoring the very words yo…

I know you already say that is your point of view, but I think this very much in the eye of the beholder. I very much like this personalization and it makes it easier to find things I'm looking for. E.g. when I search `latex` I don't want to find latex bodysuits, I want results about LaTeX and I expect Google to know that. That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on…

If you just speak about the positive aspects, you obviously never compared what you surely know to be truth, related to some "controversial" topic, with what some other people get when they search for the same topic, especially those who have different opinion of what "the truth" is.

Not counting that even that "magnification of the confirmation" is additionally modified for some topics by the "editorial" policies of Google.

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

#142

Post by spadros »

philippejara wrote: post #127
spadros wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the way business works, though. If one of your employees is the top result on Google for a dumb meme, it could be a liability to the business' image with clients. Hence, you don't take the risk of hiring them over someone else, even if the dumb memer is more qualified and a better fit overall. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk if there's other, less qualified but less risky, potential hires.

this is why anti discrimination laws exist, work on applying that.

There's good discrimination and bad discrimination from hiring perspective. Every company should discriminate their employees they want to hire, just not based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. There's no laws about discriminating against people with less experience or worse public images, and shouldn't be.

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

#143

Post by jedberg »

aaomidi wrote: post #140
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…

You know what I find amazing in this entire debate? We provide protections for literal objects in the form of DMCA and other various copyright systems. We provide legal enforcement for the right for these copyrighted systems to be forgotten on search engines. We threaten the rulebreakers with massive fines and prison time. But when it comes to REAL people. People who can have their lives completely changed with wrong…

Have you've ever been at the receiving end of a DMCA notice? If you have, you wouldn't use this analogy. DMCA is so utterly broken. There is no verification in the process and no real penalties for false claims. So people use it as a weapon to remove stuff they don't like, even if it has nothing to do with copyright.

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

#144

Post by aaomidi »

jedberg wrote: post #143
aaomidi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what I find amazing in this entire debate? We provide protections for literal objects in the form of DMCA and other various copyright systems. We provide legal enforcement for the right for these copyrighted systems to be forgotten on search engines. We threaten the rulebreakers with massive fines and prison time. But when it comes to REAL people. People who can have their lives completely changed with wrong…

Have you've ever been at the receiving end of a DMCA notice? If you have, you wouldn't use this analogy. DMCA is so utterly broken. There is no verification in the process and no real penalties for false claims. So people use it as a weapon to remove stuff they don't like, even if it has nothing to do with copyright.

I know.

That's exactly my point. If you have enough money you will be able to take down any information of yourself you don't want under the guise of DMCA or related copyright laws.

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

#146

Post by Khaine »

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…

Trump is a public figure, and I'm pretty sure there is a public figure exception within GDPR to the right to be forgotten.

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

#147

Post by gray_-_wolf »

shakna wrote: post #126
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.

And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?

In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.

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

#148

Post by philippejara »

joe_the_user wrote: post #49
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…

The post above shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. "Right to be forgotten" laws apply as much to other sources of information as they do to Google. The discussion has become a bad version of "telephone", people responding to quotes in the parent rather than knowing anything about the issue in question. The question of whether one uses Google or other sources is irrelevant here. Sure, journalists could go…

This is effectively giving the government power to decide what is legal speech and what isn't, no thanks. And yes I know defamation laws already do give them this power kindam but I still find them disgusting.

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

#149

Post by gray_-_wolf »

obmelvin wrote: post #129
acqq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should we eliminate it as a source of truth? From my point of view, Google eliminated itself long ago: it's already intentionally very biased, distorting the reality by design, different to every of its users: adjusting the "algorithm" to return to the seeker what the seeker would click the most and also what the Google's marketing would like to present, even to the point of intentionally ignoring the very words yo…

I know you already say that is your point of view, but I think this very much in the eye of the beholder. I very much like this personalization and it makes it easier to find things I'm looking for. E.g. when I search `latex` I don't want to find latex bodysuits, I want results about LaTeX and I expect Google to know that. That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on…

> That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on a search-by-search basis

it is, it's called anonymous window

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

#150

Post by tannhauser23 »

losteric wrote: post #119
yulaow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-example: What if someone accused you of raping her/him and that news remains online close to your name because it's a typical scandal and heavily reported but, when it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, there is no news reporting it because it's not a clicky article? It happens frequently, not only with rape, but with any false accusation of a major crime... Typically there are a lot of articles abou…

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.

This is not a universally adopted solution, and for good reason. Publishing the suspect's name/face as well as the details of the alleged crime encourages witnesses to come forward. Plus, from a free speech perspective, it seems crazy to criminalize the publishing of true information, especially when it directly relates to public safety and the government's exercise of its police powers.
Post reply on HN