<story><title>Why has Google cast me into oblivion?</title><url>http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>natosaichek</author><text>I like that they told the author that his article would no longer be viewable.&lt;p&gt;If that&amp;#x27;s the case, and the &amp;#x27;removal&amp;#x27; is not secret, then they could (should?) totally make available a separate database of articles that people have asked to be removed.&lt;p&gt;Basically, the original article may be old (or theoretically irrelevant) but the fact that someone asked for it to be removed is very new and not at all irrelevant.  It would be awesome to see this as the Streisand effect writ large - everything that people want to see buried actually gets a new surge of attention.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>magicalist</author><text>The Guardian reported[1] that they were at least considering a notice at the bottom of a search result page that had a result removed, like they do with DMCA requests.&lt;p&gt;If that&amp;#x27;s the case, hopefully they can do what they do with DMCA notices, and link to a copy of the actual takedown request (which would include a link or links to what was taken down). ChillingEffects.org could start a new section for right to be forgotten requests.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, reprinting DMCA takedown notices is protected by the First Amendment in the US, but reprinting right to be forgotten requests may be frowned upon by EU courts.&lt;p&gt;Edit: according the newer Guardian piece that thegregjones posted above, there is a warning[2], but just a &amp;quot;Learn more&amp;quot; link, no link to the actual removal request.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/google-search-results-indicate-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;2014&amp;#x2F;jun&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;google-sea...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;pbs.twimg.com&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Why has Google cast me into oblivion?</title><url>http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>natosaichek</author><text>I like that they told the author that his article would no longer be viewable.&lt;p&gt;If that&amp;#x27;s the case, and the &amp;#x27;removal&amp;#x27; is not secret, then they could (should?) totally make available a separate database of articles that people have asked to be removed.&lt;p&gt;Basically, the original article may be old (or theoretically irrelevant) but the fact that someone asked for it to be removed is very new and not at all irrelevant.  It would be awesome to see this as the Streisand effect writ large - everything that people want to see buried actually gets a new surge of attention.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pbhjpbhj</author><text>Presumably he can then reissue the article. That for Google is a different instance and recent content making it outside the auspices of the EU law?</text></comment>