[6gvONxR4sf7o]

I'm surprised everyone has such black and white views on this. Some things are in the public's interest to record permanently. Some aren't. Laws that respect that distinction are great.

Recording everything forever is good in the same way that a total lack of privacy is good. Many things should be transparent, and they should be recorded. But there's room for nuance.

[ocdtrekkie]

Right to be forgotten actually clearly stipulates those things. Information that's "of the public interest" cannot be forgotten under RTBF, for instance. It clearly defines the reasons people should be able to have their information forgotten, such as it being false, very out of date, private, etc.

Unfortunately, right to be forgotten has a huge weak point: It relies on the party forgetting (often Google or Bing) to decide whether or not RTBF applies, rather than a neutral party such as a court. Criticisms of RTBF have largely surrounded examples where the decisionmaking was faulty, and unfortunately, the entities making the decisions would very much like the legislation to fail.

I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company.

[umvi]

> I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company.

Wouldn't that mean politicians and their cronies can more easily scrub their own histories? Government holding the keys to approve/reject RTBF means it will be biased in favor of self-serving government-related RTBF requests

[ocdtrekkie]

Not necessarily. Governments tend to have pretty decent records and processes of their own. Note all of the difficulties Trump has trying to just make the US government do whatever the heck he feels like on any given day.

And the biggest part about these decisions being handled by government is that there would be accountability, records, and appeals, all of which you really don't have when a corporation is making the decision.