# Google told to "forget" old Internet content (lest someone be embarrassed) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2014, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334 "2014-05-13T10:42:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/41 "2014-05-15T04:25:08Z")
The Press Freedom Index: > **[World Press Freedom Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)** > > The World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) is an annual ranking of countries compiled and published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) since 2002 based upon the organisation's own assessment of the countries' press freedom records in the previous year. It intends to reflect the degree of freedom that journalists, news organisations, and netizens have in each country, and the efforts made by authorities to respect this freedom. Reporters Without Borders is careful to note that the WPFI only deals wit... USA is 46th! ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/42 "2014-05-15T08:36:00Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The Press Freedom Index: > > [World Press Freedom Index - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index) > > USA is 46th! Well this is silly. It relies on a questionnaire returned by journalists. In a nation with very aggressive freedom of speech culture, the respondents are the most likely to complain bitterly. With a more restricted view, the respondents are less likely to complain. The issue at hand is a perfect example. A respondent from the UK might think it’s personally reasonable to erase the past. One from the US would be outraged at this ridiculous re writing of history, and the way a law against it suppresses freedom of speech. Which one is going to think “freedom of the press” has been violated when he gets that questionnaire? The concept of “free speech” in the US is so aggressively wide that it tends to horrify other nations. The idea that we are 46th in international rank is beyond ludicrous, although I have no trouble we complain enough to have someone think we are really suppressed. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/43 "2014-05-15T08:41:31Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > People are allowed to keep old publications for research. The position of a searchable database has not been decided. Given what the ECJ has said, L suspect that this would also be seen as a new publication, and therefore against the spirit / letter of various laws on privacy. A Google search is no more a “publication” than is the result returned by a “searchable database.” That’s exactly the kind of thing where a 1984 doublespeak creeps in once you start to restrict truth. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/44 "2014-05-15T10:16:26Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Well this is silly. > It relies on a questionnaire returned by journalists. > > In a nation with very aggressive freedom of speech culture, the respondents are the most likely to complain bitterly. With a more restricted view, the respondents are less likely to complain. > > The issue at hand is a perfect example. A respondent from the UK might think it’s personally reasonable to erase the past. One from the US would be outraged at this ridiculous re writing of history, and the way a law against it suppresses freedom of speech. > > Which one is going to think “freedom of the press” has been violated when he gets that questionnaire? > > The concept of “free speech” in the US is so aggressively wide that it tends to horrify other nations. The idea that we are 46th in international rank is beyond ludicrous, although I have no trouble we complain enough to have someone think we are really suppressed. I doubt your reasoning. Freedom of the press is not just de jure but needs to be seen in terms of the actual outcome. Any person living in Western Europe and visiting the US is aware that the Press in particular (and TV to a certain level) allows you the best media that money can buy. In any town in the UK I can read daily papers available on every news-stand expressing support for Neo-Stalinist through to neo-liberal policies. In the US, once I leave the large conurbations, all Newspapers are uniformly right wing. Even with TV, 24 news is not only a problem with Fox being massively skewed rightwards, but also even the main channels being filled with petty local and national news following a particular agnda, but little real coverage of the rest of the world. So what you have is a right to licence for free speech which is potentially a breach of rights to privacy (don’t forget that SCOTUS based Roe vs Wade on that issue) but also gives you the best press that oligarchs can buy. Similar arguments go for real democracy against individual democracy with the laws allowing you the best government that money can buy. There is a difference between intent and the law, and the result in real life. Most unbiased people would question whether US Laws on Free Speech and Elections are a beacon for the world when they look at the actual result. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/45 "2014-05-15T10:18:16Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > A Google search is no more a “publication” than is the result returned by a “searchable database.” That’s exactly the kind of thing where a 1984 doublespeak creeps in once you start to restrict truth. In your humble opinion a Google search is not a new publication. In European Law it is. There are varying opinions as to what a publication is and is not and neither you, nor the US legal system, is the deciding factor in different jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/46 "2014-05-15T10:30:48Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > There is a real problem with the American assumption that just because some forward looking men 250 years ago set up the first fully democratic state, nothing that has happened since can better that. > [@](#): > > Most Americans have a knee jerk assumption that they are the best country in the world- evidenced by the automatic assumption of dominance and the oozing patriotism. Most other nations admit that other countries may have methods of governance from which they can learn something. You posted both of these – count that, _both_ of 'em – upon copy-and-pasting me saying “Show me the study and I’ll gladly tell you what else the US should be doing”. Did you somehow miss what you copy-and-pasted, right as you were replying to it? What you wrote goes past ‘irrelevant’ and all the way over to ‘anticipated’ --as if you were showing what it looks like to, uh, ‘forget’ old internet content, or something. Whether the US could learn something from other nations – _as was already noted in the post you copy-and-pasted_ – has nothing to do with whether this policy happens to be one of those shining examples of how we could be better. And, as it happens, no, punishing truthful free speech as defamation simply ain’t one of those. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/47 "2014-05-15T10:40:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You posted both of these – count that, _both_ of 'em – upon copy-and-pasting me saying “Show me the study and I’ll gladly tell you what else the US should be doing”. > > Did you somehow miss what you copy-and-pasted, right as you were replying to it? What you wrote goes past ‘irrelevant’ and all the way over to ‘anticipated’ --as if you were showing what it looks like to, uh, ‘forget’ old internet content, or something. > > Whether the US could learn something from other nations – _as was already noted in the post you copy-and-pasted_ – has nothing to do with whether this policy happens to be one of those shining examples of how we could be better. And, as it happens, no, punishing truthful free speech as defamation simply ain’t one of those. The Democratic world consists of many countries ranging over all continents and all races. Different countries have decided different balances between different sets fo rights. The US happens to be an outlier on many of these. The US way of doing things is neither necessarily the best anor the only way of being a modern democratic country. It is an illusion to believe that one nation has been so clever as to come up with the ideal manner of Government. The only such country that I know where the majority view seems to be that there way is the only way is the USA. The rest of us get on quite well with the idea that there are few absolutes and many shades of difference and different jurisdictions value different rights in different ways. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/48 "2014-05-15T10:49:54Z")
It seems that Google will comply and is setting up a system to deal with this new requirement to meet the EU laws on personal data. > **[Google already receiving 'right to be forgotten' demands](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629050/Google-receiving-right-forgotten-requests-EU-court-rules-personal-data-deleted-search-results-request.html)** > > The firm is yet to put an official process in place to handle the expected flood of requests after Tuesday's ruling, said the source, who is not authorised to speak on the record about the issue. The reasoning behind the judgement is quite clear and is similar to the wording of the UK Act on rights to priuvacy. Basically if any dataholder in the UK has personal information stored in an automated record keeping system, they have responsibilities to individuals and the state to only use that information within the law. As Google is an automated record keeping system it must comply with the law. One of the criteria is that anyone who collects data and stores it in a retrivable system must ensure that the information is correct and that they have a right to hold such personal information for reasonable use. Google has little right to hold such information in order to carry out its business, and so must remove anything that is incorrect or not needed for its business. This is designed to stop organisations from gathering and providing to others personal information that people would rather keep secret. It does not affect the press should they be collecting the information for a story or other investigation, but would affect an employer if they were collecting irrelevant information about their employees. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/49 "2014-05-15T10:58:30Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The Democratic world consists of many countries ranging over all continents and all races. Different countries have decided different balances between different sets fo rights. The US happens to be an outlier on many of these. The US way of doing things is neither necessarily the best anor the only way of being a modern democratic country. It is an illusion to believe that one nation has been so clever as to come up with the ideal manner of Government. The only such country that I know where the majority view seems to be that there way is the only way is the USA. Yes, you’ve once again copy-and-pasted my remarks about how we could be doing things better, and then – spent rather a lot of time and effort making the same point. I gotta ask: _why do you even bother with the copy-and-paste,_ if you’re just going to follow it up with a hectoring reply that would fit a copy-and-pasted claim making the exact opposite point? Why not just skip to this next part: > [@](#): > > The rest of us get on quite well with the idea that there are few absolutes and many shades of difference and different jurisdictions value different rights in different ways. Yes, well, perhaps the rest of you _do_ get on quite well by discarding the value of truth as an absolute defense against slander; I wouldn’t know, since – upon so discarding the value of truth – what grounds can be appealed to? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/50 "2014-05-15T11:00:51Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes, you’ve once again copy-and-pasted my remarks about how we could be doing things better, and then – spent rather a lot of time and effort making the same point. I gotta ask: _why do you even bother with the copy-and-paste,_ if you’re just going to follow it up with a hectoring reply that would fit a copy-and-pasted claim making the exact opposite point? > > Why not just skip to this next part: > > Yes, well, perhaps the rest of you _do_ get on quite well by discarding the value of truth as an absolute defense against slander; I wouldn’t know, since – upon so discarding the value of truth – what grounds can be appealed to? The right to Free Speech is not absolute in the USA. How do you justify the exceptions allowed under US Law and practice? ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/51 "2014-05-15T11:10:39Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The only such country that I know where the majority view seems to be that there way is the only way is the USA. Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, Cuba all come to mind. But that’s just off the top of my head. Regardless, even the modern US does not make free speech and journalism absolute. Journalistic ethics require that the subject of the journalism be of legitimate value and interest to the public. If a journalist were to publish that time you farted in the tub in an attempt to maliciously humiliate you, in that the information is of no value or relevance to the public, you would have a valid complaint. The real issue is with realistic enforcement. Some of the afforementioned countries have done a very thorough job of making sure the internet “forgets” things that they would rather not have people know. How do we clean up the cobwebs of old Tweets and drunken Facebook pictures without opening the door to malicious censorship or deleting material of genuine value, I do not know. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/52 "2014-05-15T11:15:09Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The right to Free Speech is not absolute in the USA. How do you justify the exceptions allowed under US Law and practice? The same way other countries do, I expect – at which point it seems they go an unconscionable step further. And so I _can’t_ hide behind ‘free speech’ while engage in false advertising, just like I _can_ sign away my right to speak about a given matter with a confidentiality agreement – but this isn’t like those. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/53 "2014-05-15T11:29:01Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The same way other countries do, I expect – at which point it seems they go an unconscionable step further. And so I _can’t_ hide behind ‘free speech’ while engage in false advertising, just like I _can_ sign away my right to speak about a given matter with a confidentiality agreement – but this isn’t like those. It is truly amazing that perfection in this area of Human Behaviour has occurred only in the Law and Practice of one nation in the whole of Human History. And that nation would be the cause of the The Alien and Sedition Acts > **[Alien and Sedition Acts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)** > > The Alien and Sedition Acts were a set of four laws enacted in 1798 that applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the United States.\[a\] The Naturalization Act of 1798 increased the requirements to seek citizenship, the Alien Friends Act of 1798 allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gave the president additional powers to detain non-citizens during times of war, and the Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized false and malicious statements ab... Sedition Acts > **[Sedition Act of 1918](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918)** > > The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. > It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or... The Miller Test > **[Miller test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)** > > The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited. > The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts: > The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.\[citation needed\] > The first two prongs of the Mil... The Espionage Act > **[Espionage Act of 1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917)** > > The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law enacted on June 15, 1917, shortly after the United States entered World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War & National Defense) but is now found under Title 18 (Crime & Criminal Procedure): 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 (18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.). > It was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military,... which all seem to negate the First amendment by any serious reading, despite what SCOTUS found. Ypu are of course entitled to your opinion that The Free Press in the US is the epitome of civilisation. Obviously the majority of the civilised world disagrees as it has chosen to balance rights differently. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/54 "2014-05-15T11:30:41Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, Cuba all come to mind. But that’s just off the top of my head. > > . “such country” referring to Democratic countries referred to throughout the paragraph… ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/55 "2014-05-15T11:32:18Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > How do we clean up the cobwebs of old Tweets and drunken Facebook pictures without opening the door to malicious censorship or deleting material of genuine value, I do not know. The finding does not apply to Tweets or Facebook, only to searchable databases which are restricted under European law. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/56 "2014-05-15T11:38:32Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Ypu are of course entitled to your opinion that The Free Press in the US is the epitome of civilisation. But that’s not my opinion. You’ve been told – repeatedly – that it’s not my opinion. You were told it wasn’t my opinion _before_ you attributed it to me. You’ve copy-and-pasted me saying it’s not, and you’ve then stated the opposite. I merely add that punishing truth as slander is not one of the ways we could improve the American system. I freely grant that there _are_ ways to improve our system; I merely (a) claim this isn’t one of them, and (b) await your next, uh, ‘restatement’ of my position. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/57 "2014-05-15T11:50:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But that’s not my opinion. > > You’ve been told – repeatedly – that it’s not my opinion. > > You were told it wasn’t my opinion _before_ you attributed it to me. > > You’ve copy-and-pasted me saying it’s not, and you’ve then stated the opposite. > > I merely add that punishing truth as slander is not one of the ways we could improve the American system. I freely grant that there _are_ ways to improve our system; I merely (a) claim this isn’t one of them, and (b) await your next, uh, ‘restatement’ of my position. Your mistake is assuming that Truth is absolute. Truth is in competition with Decency and Lawfulness, Privacy and State necessities- all of which have been used by the US in its own interpretation of its proud boast of Free Speech/ Limiting the truth is not punishing it as slander. In the European case, Truth has to be weighed against privacy rights which is a different matter ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/58 "2014-05-15T12:10:25Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Your mistake is assuming that Truth is absolute. Truth is in competition with Decency and Lawfulness, Of course it’s in competition with capital-L Lawfulness! The entire point of this thread is that a government _can_ pass a Law that forbids truthful speech! That’s not my mistake. Your mistake is saying that’s my mistake. > [@](#): > > Limiting the truth is not punishing it as slander. Well, not _necessarily_, no. But in this case, speech _can_ be punished – and when the defense of But-That’s-The-Truth is raised, punished regardless. Which is wrong. I mentioned false advertising upthread, and I’m curious as to how the law you favor would apply in the following situation: imagine there’s a guy who puts out ads proudly proclaiming that he’s been in the housepainting business for thirty years and has never received a complaint from a customer. And imagine that I’m the heroic journalist who writes up a truthful article about the guy: twenty-nine years ago he painted a house pink instead of the agreed-upon blue, and refused to refund his pay, and got taken to court. And twenty-eight years ago, he got caught swiping jewelry from a house he was painting; they pressed charges and he was convicted. And twenty-seven years ago, he showed up late and drunk for a job, and belligerently refused to leave, which is why the homeowners had the cops arrest him. And et cetera. I publish that story in the US; what happens? I publish it elsewhere; what happens? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/59 "2014-05-15T13:10:42Z")
What, exactly, is “decency”? What is the term’s objective meaning? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/60 "2014-05-15T14:17:29Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > That’s disingenuous. I know people who have no URL line in their browser (probably thanks to Bill Gates), and wouldn’t know what to do with it if they had. The only way they can connect with a web site is to enter it to a Google search line. If Google doesn’t show it, they won’t see it. It’s hardly the court’s fault if your friends don’t know how the Internet works (though I’ve never seen a browser with “no URL line”.) Anyway, by your logic Google has become a _de facto_ content provider and is therefore liable for whatever its search engines turn up. I’m pretty sure they don’t want to make that argument (and as a Google user I certainly don’t.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334.md?page=4)