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

#71

Post by acqq » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #40

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…

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

> 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 you entered in the search(!).

Just try to find somebody with whom you seriously disagree on some topic then ask him/her kindly to "google" the same terms related to that topic and to let you see what he/she sees. Compare.

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

#72

Post by danShumway » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:31 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #12

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. 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? The right to be forgotten only extends to people that are not public personalities,…

Should the government be able to decide what facts are irrelevant to the public, or too harmful to allow the public to know? You don't think that sets a dangerous precedent for abuse?

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

#73

Post by oldcynic » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:32 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…

Doesn't seem dangerous or journalistic at all here. In the UK at least the legal system is already aware and deals quite reasonably with the right to be forgotten. Has done for years.

After a certain period a crime is considered spent and you can not be required to reveal it - except in some very limited circumstances. You'd have to reveal spent crimes if you want to join the police or become a magistrate for instance. You might want senior politicians added on this list perhaps.

If you got a fine or a short prison sentence, the period is relatively short. A long prison sentence for a serious offence is never considered spent. I think there is something of a sliding scale of how long a sentence takes to expire.

I would want essentially the same from the right to be forgotten. A citizen should not have to see Google reminding potential employers of a minor or youth offence 20 years ago when the legal system feels it expired ages ago.

Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then?

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

#74

Post by ugh123 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #36

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…

To me, that the "internet is forever" is utterly inhumane. But I live in a country (the US) which is savagely vindictive towards "criminals" (though only poor criminals) both by cultural tradition and as a means towards suppression of minorities. I'm white, but my name is more common amongst black Americans. If you google me, some of the top image hits are mugshots of unfortunate black people. It doesn't affect me, b…

The whole mugshot industry is such a racket that needs complete overhaul and regulation. Probably separate regulation then "right to be forgotten".

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

#75

Post by berg01 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

What the fuck. There is nothing journalistic about their compulsive instinct to archive everything (and to spend a lot of money on enabling not just crawling the web, but rather.. pretty much everything.)

This would be like like giving some average reddit.com/datahoarder/ person a right to be forgotten, except that particular person happened have to crawl pretty much the entire world and probably knows enough to get 90% of the global population to get fired, if it wanted to.

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

#76

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #17

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 like you're almost asking about others' right to know about a person's past crimes. So I'll ask it: Should I be able to google my children's friends' parents before I let them spend the night over there? I use this case because it wouldn't provide the basis of legal background check and presumably google would be my only source of info. Or does the right to be forgotten not apply to child abuse crimes?

Do you need to know about their parking tickets or embezzlement, though? Or that time they partied too hard 25 years ago? Outside of specific circumstances, having every mistake you've ever made accessible at a glance is not really good for society.

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

#77

Post by totony » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:37 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…

I think the judicial system should account for the permanent damage to reputation of crimes in sentencing (e.g. reduce sentence because you know it will have lasting impact) and we shouldnt encourage this history rewriting bs

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

#78

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

sumeno wrote: post #57

will_brown wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Would you attribute the recent Toys R Us bankruptcy to individual owners? I wouldn't attribute it to the owners of individual stores, but the CEO? Absolutely > 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? Trump wasn't an individual employee wi…

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #72

kuschku wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? The right to be forgotten only extends to people that are not public personalities,…

Should the government be able to decide what facts are irrelevant to the public, or too harmful to allow the public to know? You don't think that sets a dangerous precedent for abuse?

> what facts are irrelevant to the public

It should be in the form of broad categories, minimizing the risk of abuse.

> too harmful to allow the public to know

Totally different topic.

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

#80

Post by nlowell » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #40

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…

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

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.

Embarrassing / reputation-affecting knowledge being available to the public forever is not the same as truth being available. Especially now that we see how engines like Youtube go out of their way to offer extreme and provocative information, we should not leave it to search engines to be unregulated sources of information about individuals. Search engines will not tell your employers that you work diligently everyday but they will show an offensive tweet of yours from 2007 if that's what gets clicks and reactions.