>Why are some of the comments here defending the deletion of facts?

I see people referring to the search results, the facts still remain in the original databases, so 10 years old articles should still be there.

Let's say I did something stupid 20 years ago, nothing major, if this is not important for the society then why should it appear on Google? Would you be OK if all your embarrassing moments are searchable on Google ? maybe you are lucky and not such moment was published but someone else may not be that lucky.

If it’s not an offence then it should have a right to be removed. If it is a legal offence like DUI, then it should remain.

What about the legal offences that expire?

An employer might ask to see my driving licence, which includes convictions, for a driving job. A UK equivalent of DUI expires off the licence after 10 years I think. If the law no longer requires it to be revealed, surely it should be removable?

Agreed, that makes sense.

I think the key point is that there is a requirement that the facts being deleted have no significant public interest [0]. So, for example, Boris Johnson can't have his name removed from search results because there's a public interest in preserving the historical record (can't delete facts with significant relevance to the public), but you can have revenge porn deleted (the public really could care less, and doesn't at all benefit from, what you look like naked).

[0] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

I think that it's in public interest to know that someone has inclination to stab people.

Do you have such an inclination? maybe you do and you don't even know it yet, it is said that we can do a lot of things if circumstances are right. Say someone attacked you , now 20 years later you can't get a job because some misunderstanding that happen 20 years ago, maybe you don't even know that Gogle shows that fact about you because when you search your name you see something else.

Maybe, but public interest is subjective. The line should probably be drawn at legal offenses. If you commit a sexual offense (e.g. sex in public) that warrants a police record, it should remain. However, if your privacy is violated by someone else when you were not committing an offense then you should have the right for that to be forgotten.

Theres also the general problem of the truthness of what people write about you online .. anyone can write anything so it shoulg be at least defendable to be kept

Agreed, if something can’t be defended with reference to a legal offence or proceeding then it should have the right to be forgotten / removed.

Because you're effectively describing what amounts to a life sentence. The courts should determine someone's reintegration plan and what consequences they should suffer, this goes beyond what the sentence was.

Equating this to a "life sentance" is a strawman argument. It's a matter of factual record. Opening up the door to allow people to erase facts (of offenses) about themselves will be exploited, just as it is being done in this article.

Facts are not deleted, you can ask for a criminal record.

If you mean that Googling a name and finding an accusation as a fact then think again, many such accusation are exaggerated or false. Also keep in mind that people share the same name and it happens that they live in close proximity (they may be related) so you may get your "facts" wrong when googling me but finding out that my cousin was in a fight 20 years ago or had an unpopular opinion back then.

Again, strawman. An accusation is not a fact. If someone writes something about you and cannot defend it by reference to recorded legal offence or proceeding then it should be taken down.