[llii]

> where they do not have control over information about themselves on the internet

The biggest gripe for me about this thing is that removing a link from google doesn't remove it from the website itself.

But people think they're safe once the can't find it via Google because Google is all they know. Especially in the age of removing URLs from the browsers input field and all.

[bowlofpetunias]

Hey, here's a surprise: the law also applies to the website itself.

Just because the person who brought the suit targeted Google first (which is not strange, given that Google collects and re-publishes that information in a way that makes it immeasurably more accessible and "public" than the original publication) doesn't make the everybody else exempt.

The only valid debate her is if Google significantly adds to the damage, or if Google's search engine is just a neutral utility. I would say the answer to that is pretty f-ing obvious. That ship has sailed a long time ago.

Today, Google's search results and interface are so thoroughly manipulated (not just for profit but also for political/ideological reasons) that it counts as a curated publication.

The fact that Google uses algorithms instead of humans for most of that curation doesn't absolve them from responsibility for the result.

[Vik1ng]

> But people think they're safe once the can't find it via Google because Google is all they know.

But the same is probably true for the average person looking for it. A small Employer might look trough a few results to see if can find something about a applicant, but he is not going to do some big reasearch.