Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by drharby » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

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…

Honestly, i believe the damage to ones life should stop when the judicial system has said the debt to society has been paid.

One reason i desire to see more convict employment advocate groups

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

#162

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #66

gethesmane wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty journalistic to me. You might want to think about what the basic definition of "journalism" is, then. And how maintaining a relentlessly detailed, universally accessible dossier on the 1 percent of the population that qualifies as truly notable persons (such as politicians or notorious criminals) -- i.e. what traditional "journalists" do -- is in fact, quite different from ... maintaining such a dossier…

From a legal and censorship standpoint, I absolutely want entities like Google search to be defined as journalists. Just because something falls under a legal classification, it doesn't mean we'd start calling Google search a journalist in colloquial usage.

The issue is that Google claims to be a "journalist" when it thinks it prevents them from having to do what they don't want to do (delist things), and then claims to be "just a platform" when it thinks it prevents them from having to do what they don't want to do (take responsibility for content on their platforms).

Google wants it both ways, in whichever way is momentarily convenient. Almost everyone's comments on Right To Be Forgotten in this thread miss that key issue.

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

#163

Post by webbles » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #155

lightbyte wrote: post #14

"Right to be forgotten" just sounds so ridiculous to me, how did this become a thing? Are people going to want to burn the history books at their local library next because it contains some information they don't like reminding people of?

> Are people going to want to burn the history books at their local library next because it contains some information they don't like reminding people of? Nope, they want to burn the card catalog. Still wrong of course, but many people think that because people can't be trusted to act reasonably on historical, factual information they see about someone, they should legislate instead. Laws become the answer to everyon…

"No one wants to live by my worldview... boo hoo"

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

#164

Post by webbles » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #115

philipkglass wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to what gressquel posted, they were doing a background check for a particular reason. If you meant "if you want to know stuff like that you'll have to do a background check that costs money ," then the "no particular reason" threshold for running a check depends strongly on the checker's financial resources. Whatever balance between right to privacy and right to knowledge is struck, it should have uniform e…

A google search is not a background check.

Agreed. And only a moron would think it suffices as one.

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

#165

Post by noxecanexx » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

nlowell wrote: post #135

lightbyte wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the actual problem is >This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. Hiding information from people sounds like a bandaid to the issue of people being overly judgemental. Maybe we need to be more accepting to rehabilitation.

They're not mutually exclusive. And anyways, given the option of improving a tool/legislation vs improving the nature of human judgement, I will always take the former.

Exactly. Proposing that businesses change their attitude towards liability when there's no clear downside is just self deceit

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

#166

Post by sincerely » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:22 PM UTC

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.

anti discrimination laws are only relevant to protected classes in the states, as far as i know, and "did something stupid when they were younger" is not one

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

#167

Post by mynewtb » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #130

nlowell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to be forgotten is meant to protect individuals' privacy. You sound as if you believe that a world in which all knowledge was public forever would be a better world. I disagree with this and think that we have to weigh it with individual privacy and safety. Not to mention the fact that these search engines are not 100% accurate, so it would be beneficial at least to allow people to remove inaccurate sources…

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

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?

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

#168

Post by komali2 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:32 PM UTC

pinebox wrote: post #124

komali2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall from "The man who spent 100,000$ to remove himself from google," the "right to be forgotten" specifically targets falsehoods and lies. So no, Trump's bankruptcies won't be forgotten in this system, but a false accusation of child molestation can be.

We already have laws to address falsehoods and lies (libel/slander). This whole "right to be forgotten" thing just seems like a good way for wealthy people to hide inconvenient facts from public view. If it was really about falsehoods and lies, why wouldn't they go to court with the existing laws?

In yesterday's article, because the person submitting stuff was not in the United States. The reason the victim had to spend 100,000$ on legal fees was because of how difficult it was to get jurisdiction.

If the US based Google was responsible, it would be easier for people without that kind of money to protect themselves, wouldn't it?

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

#169

Post by dfox » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

l9k wrote: post #139

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, though. The problem is that the most generally notable thing about a boring person who committed a serious crime 20 years ago is in fact the serious crime that they committed 20 years ago. Put another way, if I put the name of my new neighbor into Google, the resulting webpage I would in fact most want to see as the result would definitely be the article on the murder they committed 20 years ago, even though…

Most people didn't commit murder 20 years ago but may have had a car accident or organized a loud party with weed while in college. People change and your neighbor now has a family and lives quietly. It seems unfair the world should know him about his past mistakes

The same notability argument is still valid. It is not that search engines are broken, but the society which would view something that happened 20 years ago, while being the most notable fact about given person, as relevant for anything else than conversation-starter is broken.

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

#170

Post by mjevans » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 10:42 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #130

nlowell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to be forgotten is meant to protect individuals' privacy. You sound as if you believe that a world in which all knowledge was public forever would be a better world. I disagree with this and think that we have to weigh it with individual privacy and safety. Not to mention the fact that these search engines are not 100% accurate, so it would be beneficial at least to allow people to remove inaccurate sources…

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

The web should be considered WRITE ONLY. We should NOT remove content.

However, that doesn't mean that annotating content or making it more clear that a different (Firstname Lastname) did something might be a better response. For example, I have never created an account on facebook, linkedin, twitter, etc. I refuse to give any one company a defacto monopoly over social discourse and interaction; those tools belong on OPEN, FREE (libre+beer), well defined minimum interoperable standard platforms. Currently that's email; it really sucks, but the standard is well defined, anyone /can/ implement it without barriers, and everyone is forced to federate to at least some degree.