It is a superficially appealing point, but I think the analogy falls apart on closer inspection.
Unlike the "right to be forgotten", a lot of effort has been put into harmonizing copyright law worldwide. While the mechanics of the takedown process may vary from country to country, if the content at the end of a link is infringing in country A, it is probably infringing in country B (with some limited exceptions like historical differences in went into the public domain). Given that, there's a serious rationale for applying copyright takedowns worldwide that isn't Google uncritically applying US law worldwide.
Unlike the "right to be forgotten", a lot of effort has been put into harmonizing copyright law worldwide. While the mechanics of the takedown process may vary from country to country, if the content at the end of a link is infringing in country A, it is probably infringing in country B (with some limited exceptions like historical differences in went into the public domain). Given that, there's a serious rationale for applying copyright takedowns worldwide that isn't Google uncritically applying US law worldwide.