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.
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?