"What it tries to reduce is the ability of someone unrelated to find it n years later."

What it would actually do is reduce the ability of an unrelated individual without cash in hand to find it n years later. A plugin like this would create several new businesses involving the archiving of images posted to social networking sites. Those images would eventually be available to employers for a small fee.

So you really haven't protected the privacy of users... if anything you've diminished it by creating the illusion of privacy, enticing them to post stuff which they wouldn't have otherwise posted, which will be used against them later if they ever want to have a real job, or go into politics, etc.

The fundamental design assumption of Google is that important stuff has lots of links to it.

Very good point... this has worked against retailers, will work against location-based search, and is also working against victims of CIA experimentation - the worst, looniest sites are at the top of the search results because people find them easy targets of ridicule or satire.

Google and its gullible users are still a problem.

And what's to prevent retailers from burying competitors by posting smack about them, or paying SEO companies to post smack about them, now that Google makes a (naive) attempt to evaluate semantics?

You think so, do you?

Wait until you find out what the intelligence community has really been up to.

Hint: those flu shots in Africa aren't for the kids' health./p