[davesque]

Isn't that the entire point of the Right to be Forgotten? To say that there is such a right is to say that it's incorrect to expect that you could know a person's "true nature" just by seeing what they happened to think at any given time in their lives.

[matuszeg]

I agree one event does not summarize an individual. But if you can choose what is remembered and what is not you can pick and choose the data others use to determine who you are. If someone goes on a racist tirade on Facebook, yea that does not automatically make them a racist, but its a very good data point that people who meet that person should be able to reference. I believe the sentiment of the Right to be Forgotten is so the racist who changes their mind can move on from their past. But I feel this will be abused more than used correctly. Con artists will wildly abuse the Right to be Forgotten.

[davesque]

I disagree. This right was a natural guarantee until the internet became ubiquitous about 20 years ago. Human society evolved for a long time under the assumption that people are free to think out loud a bit or even openly express anger on occasion and then change their mind later. Isn't it possible that making that harder to do will lead to even more incorrect and entrenched viewpoints? I don't think it's just about con artists.

Maybe another approach to all this could be that, once you post, you can delete for a while shortly thereafter. But then your post goes into a period of extended residence on a site. Perhaps a year or something. After that residency period has expired, you're free to delete the post.