All The Worst People Would Like the Internet To Forget Them
Friday, May 16, 2014 - 03:17 PM
-
(Getty Images)
- Join the Discussion [4]
"The Right to Be Forgotten" is an idea that you should be able
to redact information about yourself from internet search results.
It seems like a crazy thing to propose - (Isn't it just a more
poetic name for censorship? Who would decide who gets to be forgotten,
and why?) but a few governments have instituted some version of legally
mandated forgetfulness, most recently the European Union.
Now, the BBC is reporting that the first applicants who'd like material removed from the internet have shown up, and they're archetypal examples of people who you'd want to know (factually correct) bad information about. For instance, a guy who got caught possessing child abuse images. Or an ex-politician making a comeback who wants an article about his bad behavior in office nixed. Or a fellow who tried to kill his family.
The promise of Right to be Forgotten laws is that they'll legislatively fix something about the internet that's essentially unfixable - it's a place where gossip and outrage proliferate, whether or not their targets deserve it. But the solution they offer -- for governments to decide which speech is accurate or worthwhile, is a silly one.
(via the indispensable techdirt)
Now, the BBC is reporting that the first applicants who'd like material removed from the internet have shown up, and they're archetypal examples of people who you'd want to know (factually correct) bad information about. For instance, a guy who got caught possessing child abuse images. Or an ex-politician making a comeback who wants an article about his bad behavior in office nixed. Or a fellow who tried to kill his family.
The promise of Right to be Forgotten laws is that they'll legislatively fix something about the internet that's essentially unfixable - it's a place where gossip and outrage proliferate, whether or not their targets deserve it. But the solution they offer -- for governments to decide which speech is accurate or worthwhile, is a silly one.
(via the indispensable techdirt)
More in:
-
PJ Vogt
PJ Vogt is on Twitter here. If you'd like to subscribe to TLDR's short weekly podcast, please go here.
Comments [4]
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.
If someone requests their search results be censored, the censorship notice would essentially be an invitation to assume the worst. It's like saying, "Hey I did something really messed up...and...well...use your imagination." (or a US-based proxy server).
Ironically, there are probably now a lot more web pages that include the fact that Mario Costeja Gonzalez lost his house 16 years ago due to financial difficulties. Look here's one more!
But the EU law allows for takedowns of factually correct information. So if you wrote about the person who slandered you, they could ask for a takedown, even though what you wrote was true. Like, they could ask for the comment you just made to be delisted from search engines, if it included their name. That's bananas.