| 4:39 pm on Jul 3, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The BBC have a page removed from the SERPs under the "right to be forgotten."
This is going to make the SERPs look strange, in one respect.
| 5:21 pm on Jul 3, 2014 (gmt 0)|
From the BBC example:
|It is now almost certain that the request for oblivion has come from someone who left a comment about the story. |
Beyond a joke.
| 2:02 am on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
If that's the case there might be a new cottage industry of "pay me to NOT post on your ..." You know somebody is thinking about it. Or after the site has been dropped the site gets an email: "Pay me, I'll tell Google I made a mistake and your page can come back."
| 3:35 am on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Another take on the story:
|Google has been accused of misinterpreting a European court’s “right to be forgotten” ruling by deleting links to apparently harmless news articles in a bid to whip up anger against “censorship”. |
| 9:10 am on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
We've all got used to a huge erosion of privacy on the Internet. It's good to see the trend reversed.
| 9:34 am on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|We've all got used to a huge erosion of privacy on the Internet. It's good to see the trend reversed. |
In the BBC case cited above, someone posted a comment under an article and used their real name.
There was never any privacy to erode.
| 10:29 am on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Google is struggling to deal with the sheer volume of demands for it to erase aspects of people’s pasts. Around 70,000 requests for links to be removed have been made in the past month – more than 8,000 [8,497] of which were from Britain – it emerged today. If all demands were met, more than a quarter of a million [267,550] web pages would be deleted – around 34,000 [34,597] as a result of complaints made by people in Britain. |
I don't understand how they get from A to Z.
I also don't understand how 34,597 gets to be "around 34,000" instead of "around 35,000" or "around 30,000", let alone why they have to put an "around" figure at all, but never mind that.
| 4:26 pm on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Google de-listing of BBC article 'broke UK and Euro public interest laws' - So WHY do it? |
Google's publicity stunt this week, in which it de-linked selected mass media articles and posts from its search results and informed the journalists in question it had done so, appears to have been illegal.
The gigantic advertising company now faces the prospect of having to re-link to articles it has de-linked in the UK in recent weeks.
Newswires suggest that Google has performed a U-turn on the de-linking. Yesterday we predicted the high-risk strategy might backfire.
And the story keeps on going...
| 5:14 pm on Jul 4, 2014 (gmt 0)|
From a lawyer quoted in The Register's article:
|"When Google receives a request to de-link, it must consider whether any damage to the person making the request is outweighed by a relevant public interest in keeping the link." |
So a commercial search engine is now supposed to adjudicate on what is in the public interest.
Such matters were once the preserve of politicians and law courts.
And this from the editor of El Reg himself:
|What constitutes an invasion of privacy is the snippets of the search results that Google displays - but with a blog post or newspaper article, these only ever show the headline and first paragraph. |
Complete nonsense, as anyone here will know.
There are a lot of misleading articles on this subject, be careful out there.
|And the story keeps on going... |
Not so much a story as a game of Chinese Whispers.
| 10:32 am on Jul 7, 2014 (gmt 0)|
It seems Google is restoring some of these pages, too.
|After widespread criticism, Google has begun reinstating some links it had earlier removed under the controversial "right to be forgotten" ruling. |
Articles posted online by the Guardian newspaper were removed earlier this week, but have now returned fully to the search engine.
Google has defended its actions, saying that it was a "difficult" process.
"We are learning as we go," Peter Barron, head of communications for Google in Europe, told the BBC.
Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, he dismissed claims made on Thursday that the company was simply letting all requests through in an attempt to show its disapproval at the ruling.
"Absolutely not," he said. "We are aiming to deal with it as responsibly as possible.Google reinstates 'forgotten' links after pressure [bbc.co.uk]