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

#41

Post by gethesmane » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:02 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…

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 on everyone, which is what Google does.

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

#42

Post by jbigelow76 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

lightbyte wrote: post #34

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…

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?

I don't really support the right to be forgotten specifically for the reasons the gp poster outlined, but that needs to be addressed with the governing body making the law. I am still against the perception that if it's not on Google it never happened.

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

#43

Post by PeterMikhailov » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

In a similar case, Russia's Evgeny Prigozhin kept suing Russian newspapers to try to remove articles from the Internet about his corruption of the Russian state.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2016/06/13/evgeny-prigozhin-s-r...

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

#44

Post by jdc » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

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…

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…

We're looking at potentially orders of magnitude difference in publicity here. I think the big question here is whether we can improve our societies by being intentional about what determines said magnitude.

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

#45

Post by Sharlin » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:04 PM UTC

lightbyte wrote: post #30

Heliosmaster wrote: post #21

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently. Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary. A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by…

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.

The real problem is internet makes everything look like it happened yesterday. Traditional news is, well, news, but Google doesn’t really distinguish between yesterday and 20 years ago. Some 90s articles and pages are still perfectly relevant and should be on the first page of search results, others very much not so.

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

#46

Post by algem » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:05 PM UTC

landryraccoon wrote: post #11

rileymat2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it might be safer to start with the right to be forgotten then start outlining exceptions to that, instead of the other way around.

Why is forgetting the default instead of remembering? You assume that it's better for all of us if we default forget, but that's probably not how you treat your own information, or what you know about others. Isn't more transparency a good thing? Do the government, public figures, elected figures, law enforcement, your doctor and those who provide you medical care have the right to force you to forget everything abou…

so when you forgive someone you never forget? Sure you list some good examples to remember but there are far more reasons to forget. To remember should be meaningful. Should anything other people believe to be bad always be remembered of you? If this was the case everyone would hate everyone.

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

#47

Post by dazc » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:07 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #8

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…

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.

I know of someone who's managed to rewrite the history of how his business came into being and its later success through a combination of 'right to be forgotten' and promotional pieces in the media.

There used to be plenty of material contradicting his version of events (which I know to be factual) but, today, you can't find any of it.

You could say all this material was 'falsehood and lies' but, in the absence of any public record, who is the arbiter of truth here?

Seems to me, it's whoever has the money to do it?

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

#48

Post by jfk13 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

firasd wrote: post #38

I think part of the solution here is going to need to be social. We need to move beyond the Gawker-like era where if there's an awkward photo of you out there suddenly there's perpetual mass shaming about it. As we grow to know more info about each other we need an increase in societal maturity.

> we need an increase in societal maturity

Judging by how our society has been developing in recent years, I'm not optimistic about this.

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

#49

Post by joe_the_user » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

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…

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 to find public records and not be able to be published because of the law (because their article wouldn't be listed etc).

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

#50

Post by will_brown » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:11 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…

>Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten?

I think even Trump should be entitled to accurate public reporting, for example, it should be noted Trump has never personally filed for bankruptcy, rather, he has been the owner of companies (casinos) that have filed for bankruptcy.

Would you attribute the recent Toys R Us bankruptcy to individual owners? Or if your favorite startup goes under and has to declare bankruptcy to shield itself from creditors before the company dissolves would you start attributing bankruptcy to individual employees with equity/stock options?