Thomas Goolnik Again Convinces Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik
from the i-sense-a-pattern dept
Remember Thomas Goolnik? Apparently, he doesn't think you should. But let's start this post off with some special notes for two specific parties, and then we'll get into some more details:
- Dear Thomas Goolnik: I'm assuming you're reading this because you seem to come across every post we write about you and then file bullshit complaints in the EU about how they need to be forgotten. And, every time that happens, we write another post. Perhaps you should think about not trying to abuse the GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten, and recognize that it's perfectly legal to mention your name. We won't even mention the original original story you so badly want censored, even though I imagine lots of people will now go hunt that down.
- Dear Google RTBF reviewers: this is not an article about some long ago no-longer-relevant event in Mr. Goolnik's past. Even if we disagree about whether historical convictions should be disappeared down the memory hole, the right to be forgotten is supposed to apply only to past events that are no longer occurring. This article is not about Mr. Goolnik's past. It is about his present: the fact that he repeatedly is abusing the Right to be Forgotten rules to try to delete our articles about him. This article is about this most recent attempt, and not his past, whatever that might include.
Tragically, Google has complied with this latest request, meaning that if you were searching for Thomas Goolnik within the EU, some of those historical articles may not be easily findable. Some of us find this to be an affront to free speech and an abuse of legal process to suppress information that, potentially, may be embarrassing to someone like Thomas Goolnik. But others -- such as Thomas Goolnik -- appear to have a different opinion. Thomas Goolnik is, of course, free to express his own opinion on his own site, but apparently feels the need to make sure that others who express their opinions should be silenced. We disagree.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gdpr, right to be forgotten, thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas gool
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik
Just in case you forgot who this article is talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's Thomas Goolnik all the way down...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Tragically, Google has complied with this latest request, meaning that if you were searching for Thomas Goolnik within the EU, some of those historical articles may not be easily findable."
I thought I'd give it a quick try for a laugh. #1 result on Google? This article!
Oh, and Mr. Goolnik? Just FYI, the original articles are still available, so we can see what you've been doing. Whatever you think you've gained by hiding the original articles from one search engine, you've probably lost through your wasted time, energy and effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is Thomas Goolnik?
Who is Thomas Goolnik?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas Goolnik? Christ, what an asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who is Thomas Goolnik?
Some dumbass called Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik Thomas Goolnik
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also, he seems to have ignored other search Engines, Like DuckDuckGo where Wikipedia, and all The Techdirt articles come up. So, if you want to check out a person, looking ate several searches engines will likely show that they want something forgotten. Also, Wikipedia can be directly searched.
(Adding the the search box to the URL bar in Firefox makes searching several places dead easy).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It does seem that RTBF has a certain popularity with fraudsters and scam artists.
Information about them that's true, accurate, relevant, and recent all damage their business model, which is why they hate online review sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is what I mean about how people weaponize search engines.
I can think of a few attorneys I could do the same to here (three in particular) and I bet some nerves would be struck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then do it already!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So are you saying that Search Engines should be out of the search business?
RTBF is a bad idea, and prone to abuse. It isn't the search engine's fault the articles exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This becomes especially clear when you refer to the so-called “Right to Be Forgotten” under a far more accurate name: the Right of Erasure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then do it or begone, you impotent half-wit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sure.
Name them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
regarding Thomas Goolnik
(Thomas Goolnik)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I call it "The Right to Make Forget." It has not caught on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: infowars quoting Techdirt
So i did a search on him just like you said and yep I can confirm witb duckduckgo that it still shows all the references.
Oddly enough I also saw this link:
https://www.infowars.com/google-disappears-techdirt-article-about-right-to-be-forgotten-due-to -right-to-be-forgotten-request/
It is litterally a copy paste of Mike's article from 2015. I know Techdirt doesnt care about that but I found it funny that infowars is willing to keep that up despite the other articles calling out Jones for being a lunatic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And "Power to override writers' and readers' exclusive right to decide relevance" is too mich of a mouthful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
He's tried to claim Marc Randazza as one, cribbing off of one of Roca Labs' conspiratorial fictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can you include dates to all these events so we readers can put them into context?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Thomas Goolnik!"
"You keep using that name. I don't think it forgets what you think it forgets."
"Thomas Goolnik. That is what bwings us togever today. That search wiffin a search. Tweasure your wights."
"Hello. Your name is Thomas Goolnik. You tried to be forgotten. Prepare to cry."
"Thomas Goolnik."
"Anyone wanna cool it?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. This is an excellent indication of why the passive voice is so insidious. Phrased properly in active voice, it's the Right To Force Others To Forget About You.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thomas Streisand Goolnik
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hi Tommy or is it Jhonny
We all know you’re far to impotent to even talk to an lawyer much less hire one bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Stole my comment. Nice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Goolnik, are there RTBF requests ahead?
If there are, the truth still won't be dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: infowars quoting Techdirt
Ew, Mike will need a long, hot shower after hearing this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Ooh, that makes me look bad, under the rug with you.'
I go with 'The Right To Re-Write History' myself, given you're talking about something that allows you to get rid of completely accurate information, simply because you don't want people to be able to find it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh did I need that...
Along with many others, I'm sure.
Nice to have a story where everyone can have a nice, guilt-free point-and-laugh to lighten the mood, if only for a bit, and someone who clearly has no pattern recognition skills desperately flailing about in attempt to bury their past certainly fits the bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let me point out for those wanting to have some fun, that goolnick.com, and plenty of other related domain names, remain available
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Eh, I mean you could, but why bother when you can just sit back and watch him smash his head into the wall that is TD, sure that one day, one day, he'll get the last article taken down and no more will be written, something anyone who's been paying attention known simply isn't going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not a right; it's a privilege. (If some people would just stop being stupid assholes, then we'd all be happy to forget about them.)
(And, of course:
RTBF -> GDPR -> copyright wrongness == the EU is down the rabbit hole, unlikely to ever return to the sunlight and fresh air [where the brain can better function])
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My wiki-fu is weak, but I got your back fams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Goolnik
Though someone with more practice should probably review.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: two attorneys
Was one of them the one that just went to jail for twelve years John? Lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'Ooh, that makes me look bad, under the rug with you.'
And not in the fun DuckTales way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
typing "Thomas Goolnik" into:
BAIDU: two techdirt story hits midway on first page
YANDEX: second and third results are techdirt
BING: second result is techdirt article
There are other search engines than Google. Though most of the smaller ones are just front-ends for Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I thought Masnick censored horizontal lines.
Gasp! You mean out_of_the_blue was LYING? Mind. BLOWN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about the Goolnik Effect:
"Every time you use the RTBF about a current news story, another new story will be written"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
...two new stories will be written.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: infowars quoting Techdirt
Infowars strikes me as a place where they just post whatever agrees with them rather than care about any sort of consistency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't agree with them, but I can see why an honest person would want to remove embarrassing or damaging stories after the fact. If the first thing that comes up when someone Googles your name is something bad, I understand the urge to remove it. It must be hard trying to piece you life back together after a bad time, and having it made more difficult by your past being so visible.
I just wish more people would either go after the people hosting that content or work to ensure more positive recent content comes up than go after on single way out of many that people can find the info. While I understand where it comes from, it's a joke of a law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, it's called weaponising the courts. That Mike is using his free speech to comment on the situation, and Google is correctly indexing the article does not damage Goolnick in any way, except for his own actions trying to get the courts to remove facts of his past (that would have been long forgotten if Goolnick had either gone after the originating publications or simply did some new positive things to drive the old bad ones out of the index).
Goolnick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did I just tweet this article under #ThomasGoolnik ? Yes, I did...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas Goolnik anagram
Hey, Thomas Goolink! Did you know your name anagrams to Monkish Galoot? Seems appropriate since all this 'forget about Thomas Goolnik' stuff is a bit mendicant in that you're begging others, not for alms, but for doing your bidding. The galoot part is self-explanatory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why limit the Thomas Goolnik Effect?
"Every time you use RTBF about a current story, more stories will be written."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Confirmed. google.com search from the EU. This article is the top link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The horizontal lines have a polarized filter on them so unless you align your viewpoint to critical thinking you can't see them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So how do you “go after” the original publications for publicizing embarrassing facts about your past? Call it defamation and file a SLAPP suit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I googled "Thomas Goolnik" from both US and Czechia. While the European page doesn't show the previously re-indexed articles, this one is #1 in both searches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Alternatively, you can go to any library and look through public records and news articles and find the exact same information, no search engine required.
Search engine return requests for information. If you don't like the results the search engines are returning, stop being an idiot and doing idiotic things. Removing the results from a search engine isn't going to change the fact that people can still find out what stupid thing you did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Also, of course, the current tactic only "works" so long as Google remain the dominant search engine. As soon as they're not, or some other method of locating information online becomes more popular, they have to go through the same thing over again. You know, because they've only been telling Google to take these things down and nobody else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly Randazza is pretty much knee-deep in the shitter so John's best claim to fame is... kicking a man when he's down.
Not that he'd be competent to do anything else...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
haha we won't forget https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/business/media/times-articles-removed-from-google-results-in-euro pe.html
3 Web Sites Closed in Spam Inquiry
Thomas Goolnik and Edward Harris Goolnik of London. The British Office of Fair Trading has been cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission in the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/business/3-web-sites-closed-in-spam-inquiry.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lets remember this one:
Times Articles Removed From Google Results in Europe
By NOAM COHEN and MARK SCOTTOCT. 3, 2014
Google has notified The New York Times in the last month that links to five articles have been removed from some search results on European versions of its search engine to comply with Europe’s “right to be forgotten.”
The notifications offer vivid examples of the issues involved in Europe’s decision to allow individuals some measure of control over what appears online about themselves.
Of the five articles that Google informed The Times about, three are intensely personal — two wedding announcements from years ago and a brief paid death notice from 2001. Presumably, the people involved had privacy reasons for asking for the material to be hidden.
The other two Times articles are less about personal details than about reputation. And it is this concern — even if the facts are fairly reported — that represents a big difference between the way Europe and the United States regulate, or do not regulate, how information is presented online.
Unlike in the United States, where freedom of expression is a fundamental right that supersedes other interests, Europe views an individual’s privacy and freedom of expression as almost equal rights.
As a matter of policy, Google does not reveal who asked for the material to be shielded, or even what search terms will cause the articles to disappear from results.
A little online research — with the help of search engines — showed that each article had a person with a connection to Europe. Google and privacy lawyers are at loggerheads over whether anyone in the world can ask that material be hidden from European search engines, or only people in Europe.
One Times article that is being shielded from certain searches in Europe is a report from 2002 about a decision by a United States court to close three websites that the federal government accused of selling an estimated $1 million worth of unusable Web addresses. The complaint named three British companies, TLD Network, Quantum Management and TBS Industries, as well as two men who it said controlled the companies: Thomas Goolnik and Edward Harris Goolnik of London.
The case was later settled. Thomas Goolnik did not respond to messages left via social networking sites.
Since May, when the European high court made its initial decision on the right to be forgotten, Google has received roughly 140,000 privacy requests connected to more than 500,000 links, according to the company’s top lawyer. So far, the search giant has approved around half of the requests.
The bulk do not involve news websites. This summer, Google told several European media outlets, including the BBC and The Guardian, that links to some of their online articles had been removed from its European search results. Yet in a bizarre twist, the company later reinstated some of the links to The Guardian’s articles after that paper challenged Google’s decision.
In the last of The Times articles, a feature about a 1998 production of “Villa Villa” by the ensemble called De la Guarda, it was much harder to divine the objection. Not a review, the article explored how the antic, acrobatic show was managing “to get a generation raised on MTV interested in seeing live theater.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]