Asklemmy

I don't think you need to be dysphoric to want to be forgotten. I don't think it's any less reasonable than wanting to have a legacy.

The real question is, what does the "right to be forgotten" even mean? You can't have a right that involved other peoples' thoughts. In most cases I think it's the right to be able to own and remove records you created on third party systems.

The right to be forgotten, as I usually read it, is the right to have Google or Meta or whatever to remove your account and everything associated with it. I wish that were law.

"Human rights" are a nice idea, but unfortunately, they're a joke in practice. History clearly shows how quickly even the most basic rights vanish. If you aren't liberated, if you don't have the power to defend them (whether collective or individual power), rights are only privileges. So in that sense, I can't consider it a human right.

But do I think someone should be free to pursue that goal? I'm not sure. Remembering history is really important in our development and learning. For a more extreme example, if someone, say, worked as a hitman for organized crime, killing many people, and later regretted their decision and requested people forget about them, I don't think someone who has had such a profound impact on a society should be able to simply demand that anyone, let alone the whole of their society, ignore their past actions.

I believe people can appeal for forgiveness, or even ask people to forget them, but I don't believe in a universal right to be forgotten, such as legally punishing people who discuss someone who wanted to be forgotten (I really don't know how else such a right could be enforced).

With all that said, the GDPR "right to be forgotten" is a distinct and wonderful thing and I hope more countries enforce it. But again, know it's only a privilege. A company can literally just make an illegal copy and pass it around like candy, if they believe they can avoid prosecution.

Sure

I mean, doesn't that imply the existence of natural rights outside of our social agreement they exist? I think there's lots in history that runs counter to that assumption.

So, reinterpreting a bit, should we have a right to be forgotten? On the one hand, that sounds nice. I've fucked up a lot in my life, and as long as someone remembers it feels like it's permanent. On the other, there's all kinds of academic arguments to preserve everything. Who knows what brilliant anthropological research you could do in 3000AD with the time someone overheard teenage me smack-talking their baby? (Only semi-/s)

I guess my main instinct is that once a right is established, it should be hard to get rid of. For that reason, I'm going to say no, not without an overwhelming argument for it. I still like legislation that allows you to withdraw your information from services, but that's more because I don't trust the services (practically and in abstract) than for a deep philosophical reason.

If one wants to be forgotten, just go to a remote location that they're sure nobody will be around. Preferably somewhere uninhabitable.

Because, someone will eventually bother you, someday one day. They will get overly concerned and if they can't do anything as to what they think will save you, they're going to notify someone else. Worst case, you'll be thought of as a criminal. Police and authority do not really register how someone wants to be forgotten. They're always going to draw their own assumptions and conclusions, just complicating and frustrating the matter that you simply want to be forgotten.

This is something you have to plan carefully because we're just not in that kind of world where you're simply left alone.

If we didn't have the right to be forgotten, does that mean records of us would always exist? Or that we would have no privacy?

imo it conflicts too much with freedom of information. In general, if I know something then I shouldn't be barred from continuing to know it and expressing it, even if that knowledge involves someone who would rather I couldn't. There can be exceptions in extreme situations, but things like a "right to be forgotten" and "copyright" very broadly violate freedom of information.

You have no idea what a relief it is to know nothing about you from before your 20s is accessible online.

Gotta frame the ideas first.

A human right is something that should be inalienable. It would be something that, when violated, suppressed, or interfered with, would cause some degree of problem, regardless of the country or other geopolitical framework.

A civil right is a right which would similarly cause an individual some degree of problem, but only within a given geopolitical framework.

As an example, voting. In any state, it should be a right that every individual human have a say in their own governance. But voting is only one possible expression of that underlying right, and wouldn't be applicable in all settings. That it is the most direct and obvious expression is separate.

So, no, I don't think the right to be forgotten is a human right, as it only matters within limited contexts. But it should be considered a civil right.

Now, if anyone doesn't like those terms, fine, feel free to use your own. They're just what I use in my head for organizing ideas, not some kind of official thing.

The only reason the distinction matters is that we currently live in a world where not everyone agrees on what are and aren't human rights. When a given culture outright rejects things that another holds central, there's not going to be consensus. That's not to say that the consensus would be right, but if everyone agrees on it anyway, then the distinction ceases to matter because they'll effectively be the same thing.

Idk but I’d hope to be remembered by my future ancestors and writings.