Would you like the right to be forgotten?

Last week we saw Google defeated in the courts, as Mario Costeja Gonzalez won his ‘right to be forgotten’. Mr Gonzalez fought to make Google stop displaying a 16 year-old search result, which discussed the fact his house had been auctioned due to financial strife. Despite the fact Mr Gonzalez has later addressed these issues, every time his name was searched for the article would leap out from the page; a constant reminder of past indiscretions. For right or wrong, the court sided with Mr Gonzalez, who will no doubt now show up in newsfeeds forever more as the man who wanted to be forgotten; there’s a certain irony to that!

This is an interesting concept that could have widespread ramifications for the future of the Internet and there are now discussions around whether or not this right will be enshrined in law. The prospect of this has been met with widespread condemnation and Google has been outspoken in its belief that it is wrong: CEO, Erik Schmidt, has claimed that the ruling involves "a collision between the right to be forgotten and the right to know" but that the balance is “wrong”.  Specifically, concerns have been raised that the new system could be used to cover up past misdeeds that should remain in the public domain.

Personally, I can see both sides. I must say that I am grateful that the Internet was not as prevalent as it is today when I was younger so that I could avoid growing up online; I’m sure there would have been a few bits and bobs I’d have liked to have the right to forget! The Internet’s living memory makes it very hard to move past any mistakes. Today’s ‘Google first, ask questions later’ mentality can make it hard to even get the right to respond to any accusations, making rebuilding a reputation difficult; not all publicity is good publicity it would appear!

At present, the European Court of Justice has ruled that if information is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” then ‘ordinary citizens’ can ask for the link to be removed. However, if widely introduced, there may be a future case for it to be applied in the business world as well. In these circumstances, having the right to be forgotten may be welcomed as a means to move forward from past indiscretions; however, it will not help in the short-term, so the damage may have already been done. Also, when you consider the fact Google is essentially just a search engine and not a content creator, it is hard to see how this process could be effectively managed. While information may be harder to find, it will always be there and no law can really control that.

Rather than relying on a long drawn out process to retract past articles, the best way to guarantee the most positive Google search outcomes is to control the message in the first place. This is why PR is so important, as it allows companies to exert a measure of control over what they convey. While all businesses will hit hard times, crisis management can help to contain any negativity and ensure that reporting is at least balanced.

Also, by actively engaging and managing the content distributed on Google, companies can build up a body of work that yields more positive search results. By creating fresh and interesting content, that is linked back to your company website, you can ensure that Google shows who you are today, rather than who you were yesterday. As such, there will be more context around stories; so that if there is a negative article, at least it will be balanced with more positive news and information.