This is not a straw man. Either the laws aren't as specific as you expect, or they aren't applied as specifically as you expect - censoring an article if there is absolutely nothing wrong within the actual article is certainly not specific enough.
All that has been eradicated is the searchable connection between the commenter's name and that article.
But it's also a far cry from "banker censors report about his malpractice": The banker most definitely would not be allowed to do that under the law in question.
So far, I've yet to see anything to convince me that there are any valid uses of this law. Just censorship.
Hence why it's called "right to forget". People didn't have easy access to such data ten years ago, either, and the world provably didn't collapse. What this is battling is a new thing: The eternal online pillory, knowing neither restraint, remorse, nor forgiveness... nor research costs.
What this is battling is people who can't cope with the world changing. Too bad for them. No sympathy here.
Just because one person cannot cope with changing technology does not mean that the rest of us should be crippled to their level. To do this through censorship is double odious.
It's power without responsibility, accountability, or sane restraints.
It's a magical "censor whatever I say" button. What kind of constructive solution do you imagine?