The right to be forgotten is the equivalent of the right to no punishment without the law. The deeds must be interpreted and judged by a court, not by a public, basing their opinion on newspaper publications. When someone is denied a job because there were some news about him in Google from many years ago, it's a form of extrajudicial punishment, which is illegal, and must be prevented.
It's far too powerful. It makes sense when you think of publishers and articles about criminal cases.
It becomes much harder in social media. If I type your name in a comment that I own, the platform becomes obligated to destroy my intellectual property to satisfy your right to be forgotten.
If a book is written with a politician's name in the title, can the politician ban this book from the Internet?
> If a book is written with a politician's name in the title,
The politician would need to argue that his/her own name is problematic.
> If I type your name in a comment that I own,
If you write a long comment about how I am a terrible person because of action I took 10 years ago and are no longer relevant, yes. As far as I understand the right does not apply to you human to be forgotten, but to specific information about you that are no longer relevant.
You are giving a government body the power of total Internet censorship and trusting in their opaque process to determine whether each request is warranted or not.
I can understand many arguments for censorship for the greater good. This is censorship as an individual right enabled by a closed review process.
I believe it will have far reaching implications and it will be fertile grounds for corruption. A massively powerful governance tool is created and all its stated goals are of limited public good.
