I think you are reading too much into the 95% number. If you further read the article you see that a third of the requests are rejected and that Google is the entity making the decisions. Since a third is rejected that means that not all requests are deemed unfaithful to the nature of the data and also Google does not have the ability to discern whether the information published is irrelevant or incorrect yet it is the decision arbitrator.
It is incorrect to say that the last sentence is non-sequitur. DMCAs cover works of art, not free speech. DMCAs don't attempt to delist journalism, they delist Beyonce, Game of Thrones and the their ilk which are not truths, half truths or even lies. However the right to be forgotten tries to hide those potential truths, half truths and lies which makes them a tool for the perpetuation of a false narrative. A disagreement is not grounds for censorship just because someone benefits from that censorship. As for the DMCA, I was neither giving it credit nor taking it away. I was pointing out how unrelated it is to the right to be forgotten by grokking the justification that brought it into existence.
"defenestrate" hmm, big word. You are the one who injected artists and compensation because you don't have a point about the right to be forgotten which by the way has nothing to do with art and compensation. The article is pointing out the act of delisting online material and asking why they are treated differently, not art or compensation for art, end of story.
OK you got my bait. Historically important is a very subjective measure. What is historically important to you is not important to someone else. Similarly what is published about a person's conduct is important to some people and unimportant to other people. A person committing business fraud can hide that fraudulent behaviour and go do the same thing again. This is historically relevant info about the person that also negatively affects the entity wanting to do business with the fraudster.
If there is a decision involved in creating the "right" then by definition it is not natural. You have a right to know by virtue of you being able to know the things that are around you. However someone coercing you into forgetting does not happen all by itself naturally, you are coerced into it.
There is a reason why it matters for DMCA requests. If we look at the principals that make laws they are the right and wrong that we as humans agree upon. Copyrights holders were given a human created artificial monopoly because we wanted to create a compensation mechanism for works of art that enrich society. There is no natural form of compensation for arts like movies if they are allowed to be copied using a cassette duplicator or a cheap digital device. Artists compensations would be avoided and we as a society will have less arts since art is nearly always costly. Hence the DMCA requests.
Switch to the right to be forgotten. This is another artificially created "right" since there is no natural right to be forgotten. What I know about someone is known to me and I can communicate it. No one will agree on barring a human being from speaking the truth, even an ugly truth. If you look at what is allowed to be delisted from search engines you see that news agencies are delistable too. So the right to be forgotten is a truth hiding mechanism. One can't legally block the BBC from publishing a story about a person but that person can legally fool people into believing that that story doesn't exist. In essence the right to be forgotten is a work-around to reduce journalistic freedoms without touching news agencies but rather the delivery mechanism.
I so much agree. A lot of those delisted links are on news websites that the government cannot censor so they turned over to search engines which don't carry a journalistic attribute to them and hence have nothing like shield laws protecting news agencies.
Selling exploits should be outright illegal. Even when there is a list of so called "good" countries, like this organization showed, there are always ways to reach a prohibited potential client as the email shows:
HackingTeam will sell directly to your company and then TunsmosPetroleum will add its own mark up.
The outrage should be that a commercial company is saying that the laws (freedom of expression here) don't apply for people who are not Americans. I'll take the analogy to the extreme to highlight what I mean. What if a person was killed by an American organization or person. Does that killed person lose their legal rights because they are not an American citizen? I don't think so. This is just a play on words on Chevron's side to try and sidestep the law.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Walid Damouny.