[regoldste]

"Gonzalez had his home repossessed 16 years ago. If you Google his name, you can still see newspaper stories about his debts. 'It hurts my reputation,' he says in Spanish. 'My debts are long paid, but those links were the first thing you'd see.'"

Congratulations, Mr. Gonzalez; now when people Google your name, your reputation won't only be defined by your foreclosure and past financial troubles--which is now discussed in 10,000+ articles (good luck with those takedown requests!)--but also for being the jerk who killed the internet for Europe.

You have to appreciate the irony...

[cpa]

Killed the internet in Europe? Come on. Free speech in the US and in Europe are two different things. But neither is better, it's a matter of culture. This decision is not backwards and it's not killing free speech as I know it in France (and most of the EU). Now, on the technicalities of the decision, there's probably to be said.

[regoldste]

I intended my comment hyperbolically, consistent with my overall satirical tone.

To be clear, I don't believe this will kill the internet, and I don't think it is necessarily undermining European free speech protections. My concern is not as much with freedom of speech and the speaker's right to disseminate information about others; my concern is with the role of the government in curating the universe of "relevant" knowledge that we consume.

As I mentioned in a lengthier discussion of this issue yesterday (when I assumed a more serious tone), I am concerned that the EU's opinion is effectively denuding the internet of its power for disseminating knowledge quickly and cheaply, and thereby democratizing the processes of determining truth. The court has approved a pernicious form of content restrictions that will be based on the utterly toothless (not to mention absurdly subjective) standard of "relevance," and driven by individuals whose interests are contrary to the public interest in information.

[VikingCoder]

It is absolutely backwards.

It may be more cost effective for Google to stop serving search results in Spain.

Before you call me ridiculous, how much do you think Google makes off of those 47 million Spaniards each year, and how much do you think it will cost Google if those 47 million Spaniards or a large portion of them start demanding the company remove information about them?

If the cost to comply is greater than the profit, what would you do?

[regoldste]

I believe the European Court of Justice's ruling applies to all of the EU countries, not just to Spain. I think it's unimaginable that Google would stop serving the entire EU market on principle.

But you raise a neat question: assuming it was just Spain (or the next similarly sized country to reach this decision), what would happen if Google threatened to entirely pull out of the country--i.e., stop serving search results or supporting any Google services there? Are they powerful enough to influence national policy? It seems unlikely, but it's a neat hypothetical.

[VikingCoder]

Google pulled out of China on principle.

China is a hell of a lot bigger than the EU.

[cpa]

Pulling out of China is a good PR move (although that's not the main reason). Pulling out of Spain, not so much. The shitstorm that would ensue would be very detrimental.

And tbh, you won't see many lawsuits where people try to enforce their "right to be forgotten". We may have stronger libel laws here but we don't have the lawsuit culture of the US. There's no way it'll be cost-effective for Google to pull out from Spain or the EU.

[jessaustin]

I'm envisioning another lawsuit...

[genericuser]

A precedent for which the case becomes invisible to the public because all articles about it had to be hidden because of the precedent itself....

(I realize the precedent wouldn't allow for that because an important legal case like this would remain relevant, and therefore not fall into the category which it allows for removal of, but its funnier to me to imagine that it could apply to itself.)

[gress]

Presumably you think he should just suffer so that Google can make more profit without inconvenience.

[nileshtrivedi]

No, he should sue the sites which host the original article IF they're causing a harm. Since the articles are factually correct and dated appropriately, I don't think any harm is being done to him merely by the presence of those articles.

[gress]

Google searches discriminate based on the kind of information that is available about a person. Someone who has a strong online presence will look better than someone who does not because then these public records will be more prominent. That is a harmful form of discrimination.

[Goronmon]

Someone who has a strong online presence will look better than someone who does not because then these public records will be more prominent.

But you've failed to argue why this is something Google needs to take into considering when indexing the internet.

[gress]

Because otherwise it will defame people selectively.

[VikingCoder]

> That is a harmful form of discrimination.

What do you think should happen when someone searches "Tom Cruise"?

Should it somehow show you all 14,724 people who happen to have that name, somehow cleverly giving equal visual weight to all of them? Not accidentally listing one of them first, etc?

No, it's not harmful discrimination. This is a flawed line of thinking.