How Google censors links to articles if just one reader complains
GOOGLE has been censoring links to news articles on the basis of single complaints from readers who change their minds about comments they have posted.
The firm admitted going to extraordinary lengths to appease European judges, who ruled in May that people had the ‘right to be forgotten’ in search results.
In one astonishing case, a link to a BBC blog about millionaire Stan O’Neal, who is blamed for helping to cause the financial crash, was taken down simply because a member of the public who posted a comment had second thoughts.
Any search for the article including that person’s name will now draw a blank.
The company’s head of communications for Europe, Peter Barron, acknowledged yesterday that the article by journalist Robert Peston was ‘very much in the public interest’.
But he added: ‘It relates to an ordinary member of the public who left a comment on Robert’s blog – maybe something embarrassing – and he contacted Google.’
The European Court of Justice ruling allows people to ask for ‘ outdated or irrelevant’ information on them to be hidden from search results. Google has since received more than 70,000 requests’. Experts had expected the ruling – likened to burning books – to be limited to embarrassing articles relating directly to a person’s past, such as an arrest that did not lead to a criminal charge.
But Mr Barron admitted the controversial edict had been interpreted far more widely.
Last night, Google backed down and began reinstating links to certain stories that had been deleted.
Meanwhile, BBC journalist Sarah Montague compared the practice to ‘photo shopping’, where people manipulate their own image to make it more to their liking. She added: ‘Surely that judgment as to whether something should be removed, if somebody doesn’t like it, it’s tough luck isn’t it?’
Google, which claims to be a champion of free speech, has faced allegations it is trying to save money by agreeing to even spurious requests instead of fighting them in front of the Information Commissioner. It began contacting news sites this week, notifying them of links to stories which had been taken down. MailOnline articles hidden by the search engine include one about a couple caught having sex on a Virgin train and another about a Muslim man who accused an airline of not employing him because of his name.
Mr Barron admitted Google could i mprove the way it responds to requests and notifies news websites about links to articles being removed.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It is clearly a difficult process. We are committed to doing it as responsibly as we possibly can.’
But Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘This draconian ruling risks turning internet search engines from being the great 21st century emancipators of millions of ordinary people into arbitrary censors.’
Critics also point out the ruling is easily circumvented by switching from Google.co.uk to Google.com, which is based in the US where the constitution protects freedom of speech.
Google is deleting only information that appears on its own results pages. It has no control over material on external websites, which do not fall under the scope of the court’s ruling.