The issue of whether people and companies should be allowed to delete or censor their online history has become increasingly complicated. As more personal data than ever is being generated and stored in digital form, there are increasing demands for a “right to be forgotten”, whereby individuals can ask websites and search engines to delete links to them. However, this also raises difficult questions around censorship, privacy, and control of information.
The Case for Deleting Your Digital Past
Nonetheless, there are reasonable arguments for allowing people greater control over their digital histories.
Privacy and Security Concerns
In many jurisdictions, privacy and data protection laws emphasize people’s rights to control how their personal information circulates online. Data leaks, hacking, and unintended data sharing mean that highly personal content can unexpectedly become public. Social media posts made years ago as teenagers could resurface to cause problems later in life. In response, tools that allow users to mass delete tweets have gained popularity, offering a way to efficiently remove outdated or sensitive content that no longer aligns with current personal values or privacy expectations. Deleting this content can therefore be seen as necessary to secure personal privacy as social norms and values change over time.
Reputation Management
Likewise, the persistence of negative, false or defamatory online content about individuals can unfairly damage personal and professional reputations for years to come. Those affected argue this can restrict their career opportunities and social lives unless they are able to exercise their “right to be forgotten” and have that content deleted or deindexed.
Data Ownership
Some emphasize that people should ultimately own and control their data, even after sharing it with apps and websites. If individuals provide informed consent for their data to be used in certain ways, they may also reasonably expect to revoke this access. Allowing people greater control over their digital histories can therefore be framed in terms of data ownership rights and user empowerment.
The Case Against Deleting Your Digital Past
However, there are also ethical arguments against allowing people unlimited rights to censor or delete their digital histories.
Transparency and Accountability
Public figures and organizations have argued that being able to delete online content compromises transparency and accountability. After the Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed how Facebook data was used to target political ads, the social media giant emphasized that permanently deleting user data would make it impossible to audit what had happened.
Similarly, CEOs, politicians, and celebrities often want controversial posts or articles about them taken down. But others argue this amounts to censorship that prevents the public from holding powerful figures accountable for past actions. Though reputations matter, unchecked abilities to remove online content threaten transparency.
Historical Records
Another concern is around preserving historical records in the public interest. For instance, if a news website deletes an article after being asked to by the subject, they may prevent researchers from accessing accurate, historical records in the future. Neither individuals nor companies should have the right to erase public events from the historical record.
Inauthentic Identities
Excessive control over online reputations also raises issues around authenticity and truthfulness. For instance, if a politician systematically deletes old social media posts that criticize their current policies, this stops voters from making fully informed choices about them. It also allows public figures to present inauthentic identities to the world by removing truthful information about their past.
Striking a Balance
Evidently there are good arguments on both sides of this issue. So where should the line be drawn between privacy rights versus transparency and public interest when it comes to managing digital histories?
The European Union has attempted to find a balance through the concept of the “Right to be Forgotten” under GDPR data protection rules. This gives EU citizens the right to demand that organizations delete their data under certain conditions. However, companies can refuse these requests if keeping the data is deemed necessary for reasons of public interest.
Likewise, in the US, privacy laws emphasize concepts like data minimization and storage limitation to encourage deleting user data when no longer required. However, the First Amendment also gives strong legal protections to free speech and freedom of the press. So, US organizations have no general obligation to remove or deindex even sensitive personal data if it is judged to be in the public interest.
The Responsibilities of Big Tech
Much of the debate around managing digital histories has focused on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, storing personal data often for years. Some argue they are simply providing a service – the curators of our digital pasts remain users themselves.
Nonetheless, a strong case exists that these tech giants have a moral duty of care towards their billions of users when it comes to data retention and content takedowns. Allowing unchecked abilities for public figures, in particular, to remove online information, especially around past scandals, threatens transparency. It grants disproportionate power to reshape narratives and public discourse.
Of course, this must be balanced against obligations to enforce policies around hate speech, direct threats, and clear invasions of privacy. But ultimately, the companies controlling so much of the world’s data should recognize their wider responsibilities around censorship versus free speech, too. Their global influence means even small changes to algorithms or privacy settings can impact rights and historical records worldwide.
What Role Should Governments Play?
Similarly, governments have responsibilities to ensure both privacy and openness in the public interest by way of fair, democratically responsible regulation. However, there is debate across the globe about the proactive role that the states should play in legislating on these issues.
China is the extreme end of the spectrum with its draconian censorship laws significantly limiting online free speech and requiring companies operating in China to keep a close eye on the content that is posted and delete content that is politically undesirable. Russia also introduced regulations to force search engines to delete links to sites which are banned.
This degree of state control is properly condemned by the free speech proponents as authoritarian censorship and not as valid privacy protection or content regulation. However, China justifies its stand as maintaining national security and social stability. The question is at what point should democratic societies draw the lines between the protection of privacy by the state against transparency and accountability.
The EU’s Right to be Forgotten approach described above allows some content removal but seeks to balance this against wider ethical considerations through regulatory oversight. California’s new privacy law likewise emphasizes concepts of data minimization and purpose limitation for digital services handling residents’ data. Users can request the deletion of personal information.
Critics say that this type of broad data protection legislation runs the risk of unintended censorship implications that jeopardize historical records and openness. The supporters of free speech highlight that the First Amendment of the US provides a powerful guarantee of the rights of the media and internet companies to publish truthful information and do it without state interference or forced deletion of the content.
Empowering Users to Control Their Digital Footprints
Finally, in addition to duties for Big Tech giants and a balanced regulatory strategy, part of the governance of the ethics of digital histories returns to education and empowerment of users.
School-based digital literacy programs are one of the ways to arm internet users with savvier skills when it comes to privacy settings, data sharing, and reputation management. However, we must also create a culture of more ethical and responsible use of social media in which people think about long-term consequences before oversharing.
Likewise, tools allowing people to download and archive their social media histories can enable users to independently audit their digital pasts. New startups are also emerging to help individuals manage online privacy and content deletion requests.
Conclusion
Debates on the ethics of deleting online histories in many ways reflect wider digitalization challenges in terms of privacy, transparency, and control of data. As more personal information is produced than ever before, voices are raised to give internet users more power over how this information is circulated in the present and future.
However, unrestricted powers for public figures, especially to delete the content posted online, also threaten transparency, accountability, and even historical records. The uncertainties are on the boundaries as controversies arise on the use of privacy laws to deindex news articles. There are roles to be played by governments, technology companies, and individuals in coming up with an ethical balance on competing rights and duties regarding digital histories.
