Removing something from Google search results effectively does remove it from the Internet. If you can't find something, then it may as well not exist. It's a bit scary how much control Google has over the Internet.
Removing something from Google search results effectively does remove it from the Internet. If you can't find something, then it may as well not exist. It's a bit scary how much control Google has over the Internet.
If, for example, a director wants their movie removed from Google search results, it will still show up in searches on imdb, wikipedia, rottentomatoes &c., and is thus accessible to quite a large number of internet users.
But yes I agree removing someone from google will make them less visible.
Both of those sites have now got search engines that are very effective; I have a two character shortcut in my address bar thanks to DuckDuckGo.
Well, if you believe the "social" hype[], people increasingly find info via shares from friends (e.g. Facebook posts). If I chose to make a Facebook post about Max Mosely (the "media figure in the United Kingdom" referred to in the article and strangely not mentioned by name) how could the "right to be forgotten" be applied? I think that even in Europe, that level of individual censorship would be unacceptable.
[] BTW I don't believe "social discovery" is nuking general search. But it's an interesting "what if"
Google is also not the be all and end all of search. According to comscore (take with giant salt crystals) google has around 67% of the search market in the US. Now taking only the US, this means that there are around 33% of the web-going population in the US who could care less what google does with its index (because they simply never see it at all in the first place).
Is irrelevance the biggest slap in the face? For some people even if google deletes their entire index, it wouldn't even make a difference.