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

#301

Post by losteric » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

askmike wrote: post #282

losteric wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem isn't that someone lit my house on fire - it's that I can see the fire"

Closer to "The problem isn't that I bought a fridge, the problem is that it malfunctioned and my house burned down." The problem is the content showing up when searching for someone's name, not that there is an article on a website somewhere.

That's a really poor metaphor because the fridge is the problem - you don't want people seeing that content because it's inherently "bad". If it's not on Google search, it becomes harder to find... but it's still there, still discoverable, and now you have no awareness or control over the situation.

I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity.

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

#302

Post by krick » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

I don't really have an opinion on the 'right to be forgotten' here, but it surprises me to say the least, how everything is justified by being 'journalistic', as if there's something intrinsically good about that. As if there are ordinary people, who, of course, must behave appropriately, respect privacy and others' feelings — and are actually legally enforced to do so. And then there are 'journalists', who can do whatever they want, harass anybody, and it's all good and well and the 'freedom of speech' — not they only can do so, but it's actually moral. Spy on everyone, spread lies and disinformation, take your photos without your consent, tell everyone your secrets, wash your dirty clothes of 20 years old on public — even if these dirty clothes are not actually your fault and haunt all your life you as it is. Just… come on.

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

#303

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

spunker540 wrote: post #226

guelo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google didn't post it why would you go after Google? Tell whoever posted it or whoever is hosting it to take it down.

The problem isn’t that the content exists- it’s that google surfaces it.

> The problem isn’t that the content exists- it’s that google surfaces it.

Removing it at the source removes it from google.

It's like saying the problem isn't that there is a negative story about you in The New York Times from 2007, the problem is that ISPs allow their customers to read that story in The New York Times. Obviously the "problem" is the story -- which you may have no legitimate right to prevent people from reading -- and if you have a legitimate complaint (i.e. libel) then you should have to take it up with The New York Times and not Comcast or Google.

The reason people want to go to Google instead is that they know Google doesn't have a strong enough incentive to stand up for the victim of the censorship. If you go to the source they may refuse to take it down and force you to adjudicate the matter in court where they can argue their side in front of a judge. If you go to Google, economically they have to take it down because nobody is paying them to hire lawyers to spend the hours it takes to make accurate legal determinations and they would go out of business taking on that role without compensation for seven billion people.

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

#304

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:57 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #261

greglindahl wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, tha…

> The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. RBTF, maybe, but how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability.

> how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability.

The problem is that the shield has value to the search engine in excess of the cost to the search engine (but not the cost to the censorship victim) of removing the information. It reduces their risk, even when the risk is low because they would be likely to win, and removes the cost of having to litigate the issue even if they do win, so the search engine takes the deal and then executes ~all the notices even when they're bogus.

Which is a direct cost to the censorship victim compared to handling it the way Section 230 does it, and an indirect cost to the search engine because it has them paying to process the removal of legitimate information and reduces the value of their service to customers -- just not enough of an indirect cost to give them the incentive to refuse, because the brunt of the cost is on the third party being censored.

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

#305

Post by arca_vorago » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

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…

DMCA was crappy and we should have never allowed it to be passed in the first place. It has been used to censor more than protect IP.

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

#306

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

ragequitta wrote: post #275

petre wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone posts libelous information about Eric and uses SEO to make it show up on page 1 of Google's search results?

Even more troubling is deep fake technology that's run rampant. Should a serious director never hire Emma Watson again because she's such a prominent porn actress? Of course "we all know" that's fake. But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake?

> But how would we ever know Eric's stuff is fake?

Isn't that a point in the other direction? The existence of convincing fakes will teach people not to believe everything they see on the internet.

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

#307

Post by greglindahl » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #255

mynewtb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, tha…

Thanks for the downvotes, folks, it really encourages discussion!

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

#308

Post by greglindahl » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #304

dragonwriter wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. RBTF, maybe, but how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability.

> how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability. The problem is that the shield has value to the search engine in excess of the cost to the search engine (but not the cost to the censorship victim) of removing the information. It reduces their risk, even when the risk is low because they wo…

The DMCA causes huge costs for search engines because of all of the bogus takedowns, which people can send without any consequences. Congress could fix that aspect of the law, but has chosen not to.

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

#309

Post by Tehnix » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #238

oldcynic wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my understanding that the EU right to be forgotten legislation places the onus on the search engines to do the delinking. It's the search engines that have forms to submit requests to, not BBC, CNN and so on. It's the search that provides the visibility. I've no idea if they considered barrier to entry or relative size when drafting the law or built in any limitations. Of course until an engine reaches some leve…

I was asking you why. As a search engine developer, I'm very aware that the EU is trying to put me out of business before I start. And yes, the DMCA is also a barrier to entry for search engines, but at least it's one that I understand well.

I think the EU is very aware that in the reality we live in, search engines are how people find stuff, not by looking through or searching directly on sites.

Thus, this is one of those times where the lawmakers actually looked at technology, and understood how it was used.

Also, making search engines responsible creates a far smaller surface area of contact than having every site that contains the content.

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

#310

Post by earenndil » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

zbentley wrote: post #292

anoncoward7780 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand the Diff between a search engine and "Public Record"? "knowledge is power, and search engines are the map". Hey kid, there's a whole world out there that's not your google. Libraries have books, City Hall has public records. How about get off your butt and learn how real research is done. Hint: it's not on facebook, google, or twitter.

Rather a lot of journalists and writers (and an increasing number of academics) would disagree with you...

Not to mention doctors. It's not that real research can't be done in libraries or magazines, or even that google is better, it's just that different tools are suited to different tasks, and some of those tools are google.