[axanoeychron]

This really is not the same as censorship, equating it does not make an argument.

Your example uses a robbery - a crime which is very much in everyone's interest to be public. It's useful to know where the crime was committed and what kind of crime it was.

My personal life does not concern you. You gain nothing and lose nothing by losing access to it for you should never have had access to begin with. The negative consequences of it being public fall on me, not on you. You have an asymmetric imbalance of power and social obligation with this information.

If you really do not care about your information being public, post something damaging. Someone would probably publicly mirror it to avoid it being removed. If you don't want to post, why not?

Social conduct is a real thing.

Forcing someone else to hide information is an interesting part of this dilemma. That someone else should have no interest in the data either - it does not cost them to remove it.

If there is a wall owned by a landlord and someone graffitis on that wall with some hurtful truth about someone. The graffiti can be considered unnecessary and should never have occurred to begin with. The landlord would have no qualm with removing it.

[Goronmon]

This really is not the same as censorship, equating it does not make an argument.

Explain how this is not censorship. The government in this case is forcing Google to remove (correct and public) information from their search engine because "they say so."

That someone else should have no interest in the data either - it does not cost them to remove it.

Of all places, it's strange to see someone on HN refer to development resources referred to as "no cost". How do you expect Google to handle these personally-filtered search results without spending money building the framework necessary to handle this?

[axanoeychron]

The person who wants the information is the one causing the removal of the content - not the government. It is not about the government trying to suppress information. The government (or court system) is acting on behalf of the individual.

Like anything involving people, it is merely a cost of society that makes us better off if we accept it as the cost of doing business. There are many costs like this in society. For example; your neighbours are outrageously noisy and unwieldy and are making it difficult for you to sleep. You have tried asking them to keep the noise down. Our society has has a slow and expensive process to come to some sort of resolution. Rather unnecessary since your local government and police have better things to do. It's not really their fault, you just happen to live in their catchment area.

Rather than just accept that people can do what they want or without regard to others, a pleasant society provides solutions to social issues like this. Without it, life would be less smooth.

Google has many engineers and big datacentres, I am sure they will manage.