All you're doing is delinking from a search engine.
It's not just the link that's gone. Not the event/story/pictures/history. And when there's no record of it having happened it still happened - right?
So all good. I always hated investigative journalism - and this should put a crimp on that!
[/sarcasm/satire]
No more futile that Stalin's censorship regime.
[cue orchestra to play Orwellian overtones]
If he ordered the record wiped of someone or something that offended him - that history effectively vanished for most people.
How is this not the same thing?
Hint: different dog, same leg action?
What do we call the European version of Google Web Search now? It will hardly qualify as a "search engine of the entire internet" except, perhaps to the hypercritical/normalisers
If the EU succeeds in getting other countries to follow the same lines, combined with "initiatives" by various countries to "restrict access"[*1] to sites that offend their sensibilities[*2] the intertubes will (at least for the vast, unwashed, majority) become as enlightening and informative as a Creationist University.
And another thing! Where's the requirement for Bing, Yahoo, and all the other search engines to do the same thing.
Something smells fishy in Belgium, and it's ain't the smell of fresh.
[*1] it a site is illegal - why not prosecute and take it down? Instead of draping it in black plastic and posting signs saying "don't look - illegal content"? Huh?
[*2] case in point, Australia's censored site list is the result of lobbying by Family First, funded by Mr "Benevolent Puritan" Packer. Odd how so many gambling sites should feature on that list (that it's illegal to disclose). No conflict of interest there... weeel maybe, but you won't be able to search for a citation with Google if the EU have their way.
If someone else comes along and builds a search engine and spiders your false accusation, then your right back in.
Big if, or perhaps I misunderstand "precedence".
The rule is moronic, passed down by malicious halfwits.
Agreed