Being forgotten might sound appealing for some, but making a right out of it degrades the concept of rights. Instead of being something that embodies the relationship between the individual and society, it pretends that relationship doesn't exist. The right to be forgotten is a figment of our imaginations.
Are we talking semantics? The Guardian's Tessa Mayes opines that we
don't have the "
right to be forgotten" online because society demands memory and, as she says,
making oneself forgotten is "an antisocial, nihilist act." Sure, sure. But doesn't being "forgotten" in this context mean having control over one's image in the world, instead of -- as I believe she is suggesting -- extricating oneself from society à la the Unabomber?
Tags: readthis, right to be forgotten, RightToBeForgotten, tessa mayes, TessaMayes, the guardian, TheGuardian, top, web
Comments
2
Subscribe to commentsJacobMar 19th 2011 6:40PM
Also, what if the user is antisocial and nihilistic? You're denying them what they want.
Dave HarrisonMar 20th 2011 7:19PM
That's one of the inspirations behind the idea of the first-ever user owned and managed social network. The idea is for the users to buy out the equity in MySpace.com. It would probably cost about $10 per user and you would own your profile data and user name just like you own your mobile phone #. www.myspacecondos.com