News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic. Parent comment

Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by lordCarbonFiber on Saturday April 07, 2018 @12:09AM (#16779325)
Well maybe Eric shouldn't have "driven drunk"? Im not sure why search providers should be held accountable for protecting the carefully curated (false) reputations of individuals.

  All of the "right to be forgotten" arguments seem to devolve to "people shouldn't be able to know any data points that would negatively effect my social standings".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by petre on Saturday April 07, 2018 @02:07AM (#16779599)
What if someone posts libelous information about Eric and uses SEO to make it show up on page 1 of Google's search results?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by ragequitta on Saturday April 07, 2018 @05:01AM (#16779994)
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?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by AnthonyMouse on Saturday April 07, 2018 @11:08AM (#16781042)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by khedoros1 on Saturday April 07, 2018 @04:33PM (#16782771)
Depends if in the scenario you're imagining, "libelous" implies false, or just damaging.
[ Parent | on HN ]