You might want to think about what the basic definition of "journalism" is, then. And how maintaining a relentlessly detailed, universally accessible dossier on the 1 percent of the population that qualifies as truly notable persons (such as politicians or notorious criminals) -- i.e. what traditional "journalists" do -- is in fact, quite different from ...
maintaining such a dossier on everyone, which is what Google does.
The issue is that Google claims to be a "journalist" when it thinks it prevents them from having to do what they don't want to do (delist things), and then claims to be "just a platform" when it thinks it prevents them from having to do what they don't want to do (take responsibility for content on their platforms).
Google wants it both ways, in whichever way is momentarily convenient. Almost everyone's comments on Right To Be Forgotten in this thread miss that key issue.
I don't really see a problem with that concept in a general sense. Google should absolutely use the law to its advantage wherever it can. We as citizens (who presumably are able to influence our elected representatives) need to close loopholes in those laws when Google uses them to do things we don't like.
It sounds like you see no problem with selectively manipulating the English language to drum up support for legal outcomes "absolutely want" to happen, then.
It's not manipulating the English language, though. It's merely interpreting the law in a way that's favorable to someone's particular interest. As I said, no one would seriously start calling Google a "journalist" in colloquial usage. Calling them a "journalist" in a legal sense is an entirely different thing, and legal definitions of things are already often unintuitive from a "pure English" sense.
(1) This is probably a project by a small "research" group at Facebook.
With blessings from on high, no doubt.
(2) According to the article, the project was never actually started.
Oh yes it was -- the FB spokesperson said it was in the "planning stages". That's quite definitely a form of "starting" (especially for large companies).
If a local waste disposal company were to acknowledge that it was in the "planning" stages of, say, a major incineration facility on that vacant lot down the street your kids used to play in... you wouldn't say this was "a bit of a non-story", now would you?
"Hey, major waste company, how about you partner with Facebook and let us sift through people's trash using AI robots before it goes in the landfill? It's for....uhhh, science...yeah, thats the ticket"
The problem with this thinking is that Google is not in the "business of war" but in the business of artificial intelligence.
Sorry, but this just spin. If you create product X specifically designed for and marketed to vertical market Y... then you're in the business of Y, period.
Not even Google's own product people would pretend to believe otherwise.
"Victim's family agrees to gag order in fatal self-driving vehicle accident" would have been a better title.
The terms of the settlement were not given. The law firm representing Herzberg’s daughter and husband, whose names were not disclosed, said they would have no further comment on the matter as they considered it resolved.
You might want to think about what the basic definition of "journalism" is, then. And how maintaining a relentlessly detailed, universally accessible dossier on the 1 percent of the population that qualifies as truly notable persons (such as politicians or notorious criminals) -- i.e. what traditional "journalists" do -- is in fact, quite different from ...
maintaining such a dossier on everyone, which is what Google does.