Why does the author refer to libraries?
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: B. To suggest that making material harder to find is not new and not equivalent to censorship
- Step 1: The author says libraries have always made some things harder to find than others.
- Step 2: This is an analogy to show the removal of links is not unprecedented censorship.
Answer
To suggest that making material harder to find is not new and not equivalent to censorship.
Why not the others: No claim is made about storage, accuracy, equal ease of finding or opponents' habits.
Practise more Privacy and technology.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.