G+_HyperLoop 555 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Originally shared by Jonathan Langdale This is a strange argument, that links to public information need to be filtered. . http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-court-google-must-tweak-search-results-right-to-be-forgotten/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jennifer Isaacs Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Can not get the full story much then and barely now. Say goodbye to freedom of the press and spoken things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Justin Phebey Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think this is more a case of authorship and copyright rather than censorship. If an individual posts something it should only be indexed where the user gave consent for it to be public or where the user consented to specific crawlers through the robots.txt config for their content. If this means a user can have listings for non consented aggregater scrapped content being removed then that won't be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts