Thomas Goolnik Again Convinces Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik

from the i-sense-a-pattern dept

Remember Thomas Goolnik? Apparently, he doesn’t think you should. But let’s start this post off with some special notes for two specific parties, and then we’ll get into some more details:

  1. Dear Thomas Goolnik: I’m assuming you’re reading this because you seem to come across every post we write about you and then file bullshit complaints in the EU about how they need to be forgotten. And, every time that happens, we write another post. Perhaps you should think about not trying to abuse the GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten, and recognize that it’s perfectly legal to mention your name. We won’t even mention the original original story you so badly want censored, even though I imagine lots of people will now go hunt that down.
  2. Dear Google RTBF reviewers: this is not an article about some long ago no-longer-relevant event in Mr. Goolnik’s past. Even if we disagree about whether historical convictions should be disappeared down the memory hole, the right to be forgotten is supposed to apply only to past events that are no longer occurring. This article is not about Mr. Goolnik’s past. It is about his present: the fact that he repeatedly is abusing the Right to be Forgotten rules to try to delete our articles about him. This article is about this most recent attempt, and not his past, whatever that might include.

With that out of the way, if you haven’t guessed, Thomas Goolnik has once again sent a Right to be Forgotten request to Google over our earlier articles about Thomas Goolnik and his use of the Right to be Forgotten system to try to delete previous articles about Thomas Goolnik abusing the Right to be Forgotten system to… you get the picture.

Tragically, Google has complied with this latest request, meaning that if you were searching for Thomas Goolnik within the EU, some of those historical articles may not be easily findable. Some of us find this to be an affront to free speech and an abuse of legal process to suppress information that, potentially, may be embarrassing to someone like Thomas Goolnik. But others — such as Thomas Goolnik — appear to have a different opinion. Thomas Goolnik is, of course, free to express his own opinion on his own site, but apparently feels the need to make sure that others who express their opinions should be silenced. We disagree.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Thomas Goolnik Again Convinces Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
54 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

"Tragically, Google has complied with this latest request, meaning that if you were searching for Thomas Goolnik within the EU, some of those historical articles may not be easily findable."

I thought I’d give it a quick try for a laugh. #1 result on Google? This article!

Oh, and Mr. Goolnik? Just FYI, the original articles are still available, so we can see what you’ve been doing. Whatever you think you’ve gained by hiding the original articles from one search engine, you’ve probably lost through your wasted time, energy and effort.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Also, he seems to have ignored other search Engines, Like DuckDuckGo where Wikipedia, and all The Techdirt articles come up. So, if you want to check out a person, looking ate several searches engines will likely show that they want something forgotten. Also, Wikipedia can be directly searched.

(Adding the the search box to the URL bar in Firefox makes searching several places dead easy).

bob says:

Re: infowars quoting Techdirt

So i did a search on him just like you said and yep I can confirm witb duckduckgo that it still shows all the references.

Oddly enough I also saw this link:
https://www.infowars.com/google-disappears-techdirt-article-about-right-to-be-forgotten-due-to-right-to-be-forgotten-request/

It is litterally a copy paste of Mike’s article from 2015. I know Techdirt doesnt care about that but I found it funny that infowars is willing to keep that up despite the other articles calling out Jones for being a lunatic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Who is Thomas Goolnik?

Some dumbass called Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t agree with them, but I can see why an honest person would want to remove embarrassing or damaging stories after the fact. If the first thing that comes up when someone Googles your name is something bad, I understand the urge to remove it. It must be hard trying to piece you life back together after a bad time, and having it made more difficult by your past being so visible.

I just wish more people would either go after the people hosting that content or work to ensure more positive recent content comes up than go after on single way out of many that people can find the info. While I understand where it comes from, it’s a joke of a law.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No, it’s called weaponising the courts. That Mike is using his free speech to comment on the situation, and Google is correctly indexing the article does not damage Goolnick in any way, except for his own actions trying to get the courts to remove facts of his past (that would have been long forgotten if Goolnick had either gone after the originating publications or simply did some new positive things to drive the old bad ones out of the index).

Goolnick.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Alternatively, you can go to any library and look through public records and news articles and find the exact same information, no search engine required.

Search engine return requests for information. If you don’t like the results the search engines are returning, stop being an idiot and doing idiotic things. Removing the results from a search engine isn’t going to change the fact that people can still find out what stupid thing you did.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Also, of course, the current tactic only "works" so long as Google remain the dominant search engine. As soon as they’re not, or some other method of locating information online becomes more popular, they have to go through the same thing over again. You know, because they’ve only been telling Google to take these things down and nobody else.

TDR says:

"Thomas Goolnik!"

"You keep using that name. I don’t think it forgets what you think it forgets."


"Thomas Goolnik. That is what bwings us togever today. That search wiffin a search. Tweasure your wights."


"Hello. Your name is Thomas Goolnik. You tried to be forgotten. Prepare to cry."


"Thomas Goolnik."

"Anyone wanna cool it?"

Anonymous Coward says:

haha we won’t forget https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/business/media/times-articles-removed-from-google-results-in-europe.html

3 Web Sites Closed in Spam Inquiry

Thomas Goolnik and Edward Harris Goolnik of London. The British Office of Fair Trading has been cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission in the investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/business/3-web-sites-closed-in-spam-inquiry.html

Anonymous Coward says:

lets remember this one:

Times Articles Removed From Google Results in Europe

By NOAM COHEN and MARK SCOTTOCT. 3, 2014

Google has notified The New York Times in the last month that links to five articles have been removed from some search results on European versions of its search engine to comply with Europe’s “right to be forgotten.”

The notifications offer vivid examples of the issues involved in Europe’s decision to allow individuals some measure of control over what appears online about themselves.

Of the five articles that Google informed The Times about, three are intensely personal — two wedding announcements from years ago and a brief paid death notice from 2001. Presumably, the people involved had privacy reasons for asking for the material to be hidden.

The other two Times articles are less about personal details than about reputation. And it is this concern — even if the facts are fairly reported — that represents a big difference between the way Europe and the United States regulate, or do not regulate, how information is presented online.

Unlike in the United States, where freedom of expression is a fundamental right that supersedes other interests, Europe views an individual’s privacy and freedom of expression as almost equal rights.

As a matter of policy, Google does not reveal who asked for the material to be shielded, or even what search terms will cause the articles to disappear from results.

A little online research — with the help of search engines — showed that each article had a person with a connection to Europe. Google and privacy lawyers are at loggerheads over whether anyone in the world can ask that material be hidden from European search engines, or only people in Europe.

One Times article that is being shielded from certain searches in Europe is a report from 2002 about a decision by a United States court to close three websites that the federal government accused of selling an estimated $1 million worth of unusable Web addresses. The complaint named three British companies, TLD Network, Quantum Management and TBS Industries, as well as two men who it said controlled the companies: Thomas Goolnik and Edward Harris Goolnik of London.

The case was later settled. Thomas Goolnik did not respond to messages left via social networking sites.

Since May, when the European high court made its initial decision on the right to be forgotten, Google has received roughly 140,000 privacy requests connected to more than 500,000 links, according to the company’s top lawyer. So far, the search giant has approved around half of the requests.

The bulk do not involve news websites. This summer, Google told several European media outlets, including the BBC and The Guardian, that links to some of their online articles had been removed from its European search results. Yet in a bizarre twist, the company later reinstated some of the links to The Guardian’s articles after that paper challenged Google’s decision.

In the last of The Times articles, a feature about a 1998 production of “Villa Villa” by the ensemble called De la Guarda, it was much harder to divine the objection. Not a review, the article explored how the antic, acrobatic show was managing “to get a generation raised on MTV interested in seeing live theater.”

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
10:43 California Governor Signs Bill Forbidding The Use Of Rap Lyrics As Criminal Evidence (12)
10:45 The Onion Files Hilarious Amicus Brief In An Important Case, And Actually Makes A Key Point In The Best Way Possible (23)
09:31 There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List (338)
10:44 Germany's Government Continues To Lock People Up For Being Extremely Online (18)
09:35 Saudi Prosecutors Are Targeting A US Citizen For Tweets Criticizing The Government (18)
13:36 Finally, Some Good News: Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Introduced (9)
16:43 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate (625)
12:03 Court To Public University: Yeah, It's A 1st Amendment Problem When You Delete Comments You Don't Like (16)
10:46 Judge Blocks 'No Recording Cops Within 8 Feet' Law Even Arizona Cops Don't Want To Defend (6)
09:31 Virginia Court Rejects Prior Restraint, Says Old Law Used In Attempt To Ban Books Is Unconstitutional (18)
12:20 Censorship Starts At Home: Turkish Gov't Controls The Press, Repeatedly Claims It Does Not Control The Press (6)
05:35 Wannabe Censor Ron DeSantis Is Now 0 For 2 With His Censorship Bills: Court Throws Out His 'Stop WOKE Act' As Unconstitutional (34)
09:38 Elon Musk's Legal Filings Against Twitter Show How Little He Actually Cares About Free Speech (35)
12:07 Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don't Like (65)
09:21 Appeals Court Corrects Its Previous Error, Holds That Recording Cops Is A Clearly Established Right (8)
15:27 Federal Court Allows Protesters' First Amendment Suit Against Violent Boston Cops To Continue (26)
19:39 Student Expelled Over Off-Campus Nazi Joke Can Continue To Sue The School, Says Appeals Court (205)
10:42 Twitter Sues Indian Government Over Orders To Block Content (3)
10:47 Policymakers Need To Realize How Any Internet Regulation Will Impact Speech (135)
10:44 More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online (50)
13:38 Australia's Upside Down Internet Liability Policy Shows How Section 230 Enables More Free Speech (87)
09:28 The Moral Panic Is Spreading: Think Tank Proposes Banning Teens From Social Media; Texas Rep Promises To Intro Bill (88)
12:15 Federal Agent Stupidly Threatens Twitter User With Arrest Over Protected First Amendment Expression (57)
09:31 How The Dobbs Decision Will Lead To Attacks On Free Speech; Or, Why Democrats Need To Stop Undermining Free Speech (52)
10:46 Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another SLAPP Suit, This Time In California (21)
09:28 Philippines Orders Critical News Organization, Rappler, Shut Down; Just As Rappler's Founder Argues Against Free Speech (11)
09:19 Clarence Thomas REALLY Wants To Make It Easier For The Powerful To Sue People For Criticizing Them (32)
15:39 Twitter Successfully Quashes Sketchy Copyright Subpoena Over Billionaire's Critic On Twitter (237)
12:14 Giant Private Prison Company Goes To Court To Try To Get Lawyer To Stop Tweeting About Them (15)
10:48 UK Approves Extradition Of Julian Assange, Allowing The US Government To Continue Criminalizing Journalism (46)
More arrow