[temporaryvector]

The reason I don't like 'right to be forgotten' laws because it feels like it's using the law as a blunt instrument to solve a problem that is cultural in nature.

The reason such a law is required is often stated as "What if I, a changed person, am still haunted by something I did 20 years ago?" which to me seems more of a problem with our culture failing to adapt to new technologies. The world changed too rapidly and the culture is too emotion-driven these days, making 'right to be forgotten' laws seem necessary when the problem should, ideally, be solved by education.

I don't have the time right now to go into in depth about my thoughts, but I think there needs to be a distinction between 'right to be forgotten' as a cultural value and 'right to be forgotten' as law, the same way there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech' as a value ("I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") and 'freedom of speech' as law as in the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn, though, that is up for discussion.

My thoughts on the matter can be summed up as follows: Blocking some speech from your private website or publishing old racist tweets on your private website should fall in the same category (roughly) as eating an entire birthday cake: Something that shouldn't be illegal but something that should not be seen as good, people who do it should be made aware that what they're doing is not good but that it is their right to do so.

The recent controversy about Carson King (the viral Busch Light man) and his old racist tweets and the public reaction to all that come to mind as an example.

[libertine]

I don't think it's a cultural thing, simply because across time when ever you wanted someone to be remembered, or their actions, you would still do it no matter the medium - word of mouth, paper, stone.

The problem is bound to the internet medium: how information is spread, indexed and stored, while being cheap - so cheap we can almost claim it's free.

It's not a matter of one being a changed person or not. It's simply your right to not have your information indexed, with no intrinsic value attached to it.

People wouldn't be featured on an old mass media like newspaper unless such person was "news-worthy" in the eyes of journalists that had to a code of conduct.

The internet has no morals or code of conduct.