Google Inc has broken its silence on criticisms over its recent implementation of actions to adhere to the European Union’s ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling. The giant search engine firm has been receiving major complaints over the move, particularly from British media firms like Daily Mail, The Guardian, and BBC.
The media outlets have been criticizing Google’s approach. They pointed out that some of their pages have started to disappear from search engine results. This strongly alarms them. One journalist even said that removing one of blogs in the results is like throwing his work into oblivion.
For its response, Google has humbly admitted that it has become too keen in granting requests for removal of online sites from its search results. The company revealed that since May, it has already received more than 70,000 requests from different people for deletion of specific links to articles.
Reaction to the ruling
These incidents underscore the level of uncertainty on how Google should adhere to the ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling, which was upheld by the European court in May. The policy gives EU residents the ‘right to be forgotten.’ This means that the citizens can make requests to scrub links to articles or content that appear when a name search is done in the search engine.
Google has been opposing the ruling even since its outset. Privacy advocates point out that a possible backlash on what seems to be as press censorship may highlight the possible danger of the ruling.
Call for debate
The controversy over the move may bring back the debate over the issue on the ‘right to be forgotten.’ Some analysts hope that this may help the people realize the disadvantages of the policy. This may also make people think twice before submitting any request to remove links to online content.
Google currently controls over 90% of online searches across the region. It pointed out that it is its practice to provide the media outlets and the authors involved appropriate notifications about the requests to remove their links from the search engine results. It explains that it is just protecting the effectiveness and reliability of its search franchise.