.com is on their fucking roof, of course they aren't going to deal with your bullshit there.
[QUOTE=JerryK;46581335]yo europe, can you stop being whiny babies please[/QUOTE]
Right to forget has some legitimate benefits. If some false accusations started spreading all over the internet, and you got cleared of it. Those top results would stick there.
Of course you can still use it if there is legit news that is true, yet daming.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;46581389]Right to forget has some legitimate benefits. If some false accusations started spreading all over the internet, and you got cleared of it. Those top results would stick there.
Of course you can still use it if there is legit news that is true, yet daming.[/QUOTE]
Even if somebody were to fall under the first scenario, it isn't right to remove all information from indexing. It should fall upon the press sites to update their articles by adding new information and not removing the old text, not the indexing site to hide the articles from view.
[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;46582680]Even if somebody were to fall under the first scenario, it isn't right to remove all information from indexing. It should fall upon the press sites to update their articles by adding new information and not removing the old text, not the indexing site to hide the articles from view.[/QUOTE]
A lot of sites will never ever do that though, that's why this is a thing, right? I assume people have asked the sites containing the information before they ask google to not index those sites (though I could be wrong).
[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;46582680]Even if somebody were to fall under the first scenario, it isn't right to remove all information from indexing. It should fall upon the press sites to update their articles by adding new information and not removing the old text, not the indexing site to hide the articles from view.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't happen, and it has ruined lives and careers due to a preemptive judging by online tabloids. "Man accused of rape" x1000 articles, even when the case might have been thrown out and it was false.
It does fall on those sites, but they don't really have any incentive.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;46582814]That doesn't happen, and it has ruined lives and careers due to a preemptive judging by online tabloids. "Man accused of rape" x1000 articles, even when the case might have been thrown out and it was false.
It does fall on those sites, but they don't really have any incentive.[/QUOTE]
Neither should google. It doesn't seem appropriate to attack a library after a book defacing a person is released. You can't just say "Welp, since we cant get the news sites to do it, lets just go for the next best thing." It is a significant moral issue in my opinion to have the information removed at all, let alone doing it by making it near impossible to find the information in the first place. Hell, an easy fix to this would be adding a section next to a link that had a "right to be forgotten" style notice, and instead have it say "This information is likely outdated, please research the information on this page further."
[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;46583031]Neither should google. It doesn't seem appropriate to attack a library after a book defacing a person is released. You can't just say "Welp, since we cant get the news sites to do it, lets just go for the next best thing." It is a significant moral issue in my opinion to have the information removed at all, let alone doing it by making it near impossible to find the information in the first place. Hell, an easy fix to this would be adding a section next to a link that had a "right to be forgotten" style notice, and instead have it say "This information is likely outdated, please research the information on this page further."[/QUOTE]
I don't feel your metaphor displays the specific angle of this. Google's system is to show the most relevant information based on how much traffic it receives and how much it is linked to. It's as if in that library you looked up a book called evolution and the librarian showed you "50 reasons evolution is the dumbest thing ever" first, as well as some other books.
Being the largest search engine, Google can't be seen as just an innocent bystander. Google isn't at fault, but they are in a position where their influence is a massive concern. I agree with your solution, however that would be in a perfectly ideal world where people read all the information before making a judgement. How often do you do a google search for an answer, read the headlines on the results or MAYBE read inside the blurb shown. It's a lot. Having an extra bit of text asking the person to do more research, it just would not be that effective.
However, perhaps is google brought you to a intermediate page like chrome or firefox do for malicious sites. This physically stops you. They could add this to sites showing up say the first 50 pages, and the page could say something to the effect of "This link has been flagged for misrepresenting the character of John Doe in accordance with the <Right to be Forgotten> policy. If the information you are searching for is related to 'John Doe Allegations blahblah', you can follow this <link> for up to date articles on this information" And it could bring it to a specialized google search for updated information on something. So it's similar, but I think having an intermediate screen is a much better compromise.
[I]At the same time,[/I] this policy is not just for people being reported on for accusations and it turns out they didn't happen, this is supposed to cover for many other reasons. I don't agree with every scenario in which it happens, but I think it's something that at some level should be included.
[QUOTE]I don't feel your metaphor displays the specific angle of this. Google's system is to show the most relevant information based on how much traffic it receives and how much it is linked to. It's as if in that library you looked up a book called evolution and the librarian showed you "50 reasons evolution is the dumbest thing ever" first, as well as some other books. [/QUOTE]
If that was a more popular book, the library would do everything in their power to make it available to me.
[quote]Being the largest search engine, Google can't be seen as just an innocent bystander. Google isn't at fault, but they are in a position where their influence is a massive concern. I agree with your solution, however that would be in a perfectly ideal world where people read all the information before making a judgement. How often do you do a google search for an answer, read the headlines on the results or MAYBE read inside the blurb shown. It's a lot. Having an extra bit of text asking the person to do more research, it just would not be that effective. [/quote]
This seems more like an issue with people not knowing how to do their research properly. I also tend to ignore the actual text results on google and look at the information on the site directly, as the blurbs are rather fragmented and generally don't pertain directly to what I am looking up. I have no idea on other peoples habits on the matter.
[quote]However, perhaps is google brought you to a intermediate page like chrome or firefox do for malicious sites. This physically stops you. They could add this to sites showing up say the first 50 pages, and the page could say something to the effect of "This link has been flagged for misrepresenting the character of John Doe in accordance with the <Right to be Forgotten> policy. If the information you are searching for is related to 'John Doe Allegations blahblah', you can follow this <link> for up to date articles on this information" And it could bring it to a specialized google search for updated information on something. So it's similar, but I think having an intermediate screen is a much better compromise.[/quote]
This is also a very good solution, as long as it allows me to enter the site anyway. If OJ Simpson submits a right to be forgotten request, and I am specifically researching the trials of OJ Simpson, I shouldn't be hindered if I am looking specifically for the possibly incorrect information.
[quote][I]At the same time,[/I] this policy is not just for people being reported on for accusations and it turns out they didn't happen, this is supposed to cover for many other reasons. I don't agree with every scenario in which it happens, but I think it's something that at some level should be included.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that a person should have the ability to affect the presentation of data given from a search result when it directly pertains to them, but I do disagree that it should in any way inhibit the ability to find the information. The current implementation is very poor and is pushing censorship, which in my opinion is immoral in the first place, to a party that shouldn't even have anything to do with it. As I have said earlier, the responsibility of distributing correct information should be upon the sites that are actually distributing information in the first place, not the indexing services. And while this isn't necessarily plausible with the amount of news sites and blogs that are out there, there are better ways to go about presenting accurate and current information then telling a search engine to remove a link.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
