if you don't like your posts on a forum

[Aspergers_Aspie]

if you don't like your posts on a forum you can legally request the removal of forum posts under data protection laws like the GDPR (in the UK/EU), which provides a "right to erasure" (right to be forgotten). Organisations must take reasonable steps to delete personal data, including forum posts, if it is no longer necessary, consent is withdrawn, or it was unlawfully processed.

 

[Judge]

if you don't like your posts on a forum you can legally request the removal of forum posts under data protection laws like the GDPR (in the UK/EU), which provides a "right to erasure" (right to be forgotten). Organisations must take reasonable steps to delete personal data, including forum posts, if it is no longer necessary, consent is withdrawn, or it was unlawfully processed.

Yes, however my understanding is that it can only apply to forum members who physically reside in the UK or European Union. Particularly given that the servers on this forum do not physically reside there. That such extraterritoriality goes only so far.

However there may still be one huge caveat. How they do or don't go about enforcing it. They might be quite picky about what cases they look at, and what ones are filed in a waste basket. After all, think of the logistics involved on a global basis with limited governmental resources.

To my mind such laws exist largely to pacify the public, but little else. When they are more likely to be wrapped in "red tape" bureaucracy and stay there until people get tired of waiting for a resolve that never actually comes.

Does GDPR Require EU Data Hosting?

 

[Outdated]

I don't understand this "right to be forgotten". It simply doesn't make sense. Try using it in the context of a spoken conversation - you say something you regret, you instantly ask the other person to forget that you just said that and they agree.

Did the other person really forget?
Can you now carry on as if the unfortunate statement you wish forgotten had never been spoken in the first place?

Australia has gone the other way and is instead making people much more aware of their rights and responsibilities (and liabilities) when operating as a publisher, because when you post messages in a public place you are indeed publishing. And just to hammer that message home we've been arresting and charging some people over their posts with charges ranging from "using a carriage service to harass or intimidate" to full blown terrorism charges.

 

[Matthias]

if you don't like your posts on a forum you can legally request the removal of forum posts under data protection laws like the GDPR (in the UK/EU), which provides a "right to erasure" (right to be forgotten). Organisations must take reasonable steps to delete personal data, including forum posts, if it is no longer necessary, consent is withdrawn, or it was unlawfully processed.

I believe this only refers to private records, such as information companies keep in their records about you. For example, the last time I checked Google kept track of search terms I used, the websites I visited, what Youtube videos I watched, and the IP address I used to sign in to my account. There is an option available to view and delete all of this information. However, when you post on an online forum, you're making that information publicly available. The forum may actually "own" the information, similar to a copyright for a book and may have the right to do whatever they want with that information (publish it elsewhere, use it in an advertisement, sell it to someone else, etc.)

If you click on "Terms and rules" on the bottom right of this website, you can read the terms for this forum: "... Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion.... You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content..."

 

[cooljethro]

I looked into this a while back.

Apparently, forums and such are only obliged to delete things if it is 'reasonable' to do so and doesn't affect the flow of the information that they are hosting.

Deleting a persons whole post history would disrupt conversations and make some threads nonsensical, especially in threads where replies are made without using the quote function.

So yeah, forums don't have to do it if it is too much work/has too much of an impact, basically. It is discretionary as I understand.

Having said that, plenty of social media websites have a good 'nuke' button to delete everything in one swoop, though that usually takes a number of days before being actioned - 30 days or so on some social media websites.

 

[Judge]

I don't understand this "right to be forgotten". It simply doesn't make sense.

Yes- because it's not intended to make too much sense to begin with. That was not intended to be too specific so as to incite massive numbers of users to act accordingly.

Again, it's the logistics of such legislation that betrays the likelihood of few such requests being scrutinized, let alone granted by government. Because they don't realistically have the manpower to accomplish it in the first place. Ultimately making the implementation of such a law questionable in itself.

Typical legislation in the realm of civil law more indicative of lawmakers wanting to appear proactive over issues that have few solutions both practically or politically. That if anything, it might be posts of such a volatile nature (legally speaking) that are warranted to be purged, rather than any capricious request by an author who may have far less critical reasons for doing so.

Much like film producers banking on their audience not noticing various inaccuracies or details, politicians have their own brand of such practices spanning several democracies.

 

[Dagan]

I'm sure we've all posted something stupid a time or two. There's this thing called asking for forgiveness, and / or calling your own self out, being accountable, responsible and just saying that you were wrong...you're sorry. For some reason, that's not what happens most of the time, though, even when it's the simplest means of redemption.

 

[Judge]

It is an interesting dichotomy that developers opt to either limit the time one can change a post, or eliminate it entirely in the hope that members will be more prudent about what they post, particularly "in the heat of the moment". Yet the pressure of a shorter duration in time may actually enable one to hastily post something more problematic, as time is limited.

Another potential dichotomy as well:

When two governments legislate such a "stopgap measure" to potentially overrule conditions set by site owners. When it's more likely government will never get around to actually rectifying such concerns in the first place.