Google Reinstating Some 'Forgotten' Links 74
An anonymous reader writes Only days after receiving harsh criticism from all corners of the internet for taking down links to news articles, Google has started to reinstate those links. Google's Peter Barron denied that they were simply granting all "right to be forgotten" requests. "The European Court of Justice [ECJ] ruling was not something that we welcomed, that we wanted — but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law," he said. Still, Google's actions are being called "tactical" for how quickly they were able to stir public dissent over the EU ruling. "It's convenient, then, that it's found a way to get the media to kick up the fuss for it: there are very few news organisations in the world who are happy to hear their output is being stifled. A few automated messages later, the story is back in the headlines – and Google is likely to be happy about that."
As "tactical" as an nuclear bomb (Score:2, Insightful)
Did anyone honestly expect anything less? The "right to be forgotten" was bound to disproportionately hit news organizations by nature.
google doens't need to stir up dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
People see this law for what it is, a way for the rich/politicians/scum to get rid of stories that make them look like the twats they are.
Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did you still get the links outside Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
One man's right to "privacy" is another man's right to control your information.
My "right" to privacy can be used to conceal fraud, criminal activity, bad press and do it with the brute force of government on my side.
And the brute force of government is the power to make you poor, to have you arrested, to put you in jail if you do not comply.
Enviable, and pitiable (Score:4, Insightful)
On the one hand, they constantly get orders to remove search results that the likes of DuckDuckGo never need to deal with.
On the other, when they actually do remove links, they almost uniquely have the power to make the asker instantly regret the request... Whether through the "Streisand" effect, or in the present case, by "innocently" applying the demand in an overly-broad manner, Google comes out smelling like roses while those who would silence them become the next internet pariahs-of-the-week.
Truly beautiful! And for a change (though I in no way mean to claim Google as any sort of White Knight), this effect works largely in favor of the public.
Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea that you should be able to publish anything you want anywhere (you own) is a peculiarly American idea. It's probably because the US was founded by businessmen who understand that it's far more subtle to buy out the presses, lie a lot and simply drown out dissenting speech (until it gets slightly too loud for comfort - then you bring the guns in) than it is to simply say, "No, you can't spread bullshit."
This is why people can call for suffering for blacks and gays until the end of days and pay for dishonest political campaigns, but the only way you're going to reach a large audience is to be part of half a dozen media conglomerates. And if you say something really worth listening to - speak information about abuse in government security services, for example - suddenly your freedom to speak disappears entirely.
Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent (Score:4, Insightful)
Democratic-Republicans -- usually called Republicans -- if you please. Jefferson's party is the parent of both parties today, though he'd hardly recognize either. And of course they were argued as unconstitutional on free speech grounds. See the third Kentucky Resolution.