Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Reinstating Some 'Forgotten' Links

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-that-a-point-has-been-made dept.

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."

6 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. google doens't need to stir up dissent by Nyder · · 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.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Results that are libelous should result in court cases against the persons making the libelous publications. Following their conviction in a court of law, the judge should rule that the offending content should be suppressed. This ludicrous hassling of search indexes is not the answer.

    2. Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are plenty of laws in existence to deal with libelous or legally damaging stories on the internet. Why does this law need to exist outside of those existing methods? Well, that would be to force Google to do the job of the courts in the EU, of course.

      Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if all these instances were adjudicated by a court first, and Google was handed a list of "when a user searches for this, this specific link should be omitted" rather than the cop out "Google has to look at each request and decide what fits" BS.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    3. Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Funny

      How can Europeans know that censorship ends poorly when nobody's allowed to tell them about it?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  2. Re:Did you still get the links outside Europe by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which rights of yours are being assaulted when politicians and 1%ers use Google privacy requests to snuff true information and private dissent under the guise of "privacy".

    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.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  3. Isn't this a case of wanting to have it both ways? by brix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aren't many of the news organizations in the EU the same ones that wanted to charge Google a licensee to link to their articles in the first place?

    They're upset when Google links to their articles; they're upset when they don't ...