What is the main point of the passage?
Search engines have turned the past into a permanent present. A youthful mistake, reported once in a local paper, can now be summoned by anyone typing a name. Supporters of a right to be forgotten say that people should be able to ask for such links to be removed once they have lost their relevance. Opponents reply that this amounts to censorship and rewrites history. The reply is overstated. The original article remains in the archive; what is removed is the ease of finding it. Libraries have always made some things harder to find than others. What matters is whether a person's reputation should depend on the efficiency of an algorithm. Of course, the right needs limits: a public official should not be able to bury an old scandal that still bears on their fitness for office.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. A limited right to have outdated search results removed is defensible and does not amount to censorship
- Step 1: The author answers the 'censorship' charge by pointing out that the article remains in the archive.
- Step 2: The final sentence adds limits, so the right is defended in qualified form.
Answer
A limited right to have outdated search results removed is defensible and does not amount to censorship.
Why not the others: The author does not want search engines closed, archives edited, officials protected or libraries elevated above the internet.
Practise more Privacy and technology.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.