It clearly needs to develop something to stop it. For one thing, disclosing court-ordered removals via the Lumen database and in notices published in related search results may not be the best idea. This now alerts bad players in the online ecosystem that action has been taken, allowing them to try to execute countermeasures. In the case of a number of victims of defamation, it is also something stupid. On the one hand, Google says: "We agree that this defamation is so serious that even though we are not legally required to do so,
we are removing it from our search results." On the other hand, they then post links to the Lumen database where the same links are listed. Yes, I get it's cool when you talk about governments trying to suppress free speech, or when SLAPP lawsuits may be at jewelry retouching service stake. But I don't think it's cool to re-expose things that are very damaging and non-controversial that you agreed to remove in the first place. Right now, as I write this, I am looking at the Lumen database entry of that revenge porn client I mentioned earlier.
When these Ripoff report pages about her reappeared in Google, her lawyer again submitted removal requests to Google last month. I'm going to strike out identifiable names and slightly edit this sentence from the first paragraph of this court order so you can understand what I'm talking about: It is clear to the Court that the defendant engaged in an extensive campaign to defame, harass, stalk, impersonate and invade Ms privacy. The defendant's unlawful