HopLite Online Reputation Management

Welcome to Our Knowledge-Base

Find the Answers to Common Questions...

When it comes to dealing with ORM, everyone always has questions; usually very good ones -- we have answers. That's why we've created a list of the most common things people ask about and made it available here. So you may be surprised you might find out what you're looking for without having to go very far. Feel free to browse below. These are just a small number of the ways we can help at HopLite when ORM problems strike.

What's HopLite's Opinion on the "Right To Be Forgotten"?

There is a movement that has been gaining steam lately in the area of Internet Reputation Management; and this is known as the so-called “Right To Be Forgotten.” Imagine if an unflattering article about you appeared on a major online search engine like google every time someone did a search, regardless of the person doing the search -- a potential employer, a friend, a person who you may go out on a date with, relatives, (etc.). The article is perhaps, about a very minor criminal offense that happened when you were very young, disturbing the peace maybe, but it’s something that occurred very long ago, and no longer part of who you are, just who you were many years ago, and you have not had any criminal offenses of any kind since. Therefore, or so the thinking by many people goes -- this article in question would be “outdated,” one could say, for this reason. One might also argue, and many people do, that such things, if they are not major, become “irrelevant” after some time, because many people make mistakes when they are young, and further, what if the article that is so damaging is perhaps something financial, and not a criminal offense at all, something that shouldn’t be anyone’s business, yet it has somehow become their business through online search engines?

Hence, many people feel, that a so-called “Right To Be Forgotten” exists. That, as long as the pubic does not have a “need to know,” information like the above should be “removed” from search engine listings and queries, and that the company that owns the search engine (like google or bing), must be required by law to do so.

There are many arguments about this in both directions and on both sides. For example, opponents of the so-called “Right To Be Forgotten” argue that it is a free speech issue, and it is damaging to freedom of speech since all the search engine is creating is a listing of online articles they did not write, based on the ones its algorithms feel are the most relevant, and therefore, if the search engine is “required” to remove it, rather than effectively removing it by “suppressing” the article, you’re unfairly stifling their freedom of expression to create listings of articles that don’t belong to them, rather than simply the generation of new content on behalf of the user in their name.

But proponents of the “Right to Be Forgotten” argue that since everyone uses search engines, they must also be held accountable to the public good; and that there are already laws in many places (like for example, in many US states) requiring that after a certain period of years, most types of crimes before a selected point in time must be removed from a government background check (10 years for example, in some places), and that it invalidates the purposes of those laws, if employers can still look up that information on google, when they are already legally required not to have any access to it of any kind, and for any reason, under existing law. Hence, their ability to find it on google is contrary to the purpose of an existing law.

The “Right To Be Forgotten” movement has already gained a great deal of steam in Europe, where in May, 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that search engines must remove all content requested by users in regards to themselves that is “outdated, irrelevant, or no longer relevant.” This would not remove the content from the internet itself, just from the search engine in question, so no one would be able to see it during an internet search. This is a big win for proponents of the idea.

Here at HopLite Online Reputation Management, we do not take a specific direct position in regards to the “Right To Be Forgotten,” although we know a great deal about it and are often asked about it, and we are always happy to answer any questions about it or discuss it with our customers or potential customers, and explain what it can mean for or perhaps do for them (if they live in a locality where they “Right To Be Forgotten" exists). But perhaps just as importantly, here at HopLite, we already have the ability to “suppress” any unwanted articles on internet search engines, by creating new, dynamic, and amazing content on your behalf so they can cause your reputation no further harm in any way, shape, or form. Many articles and postings about both individuals and companies like the very example listed above are unfair, and should be dealt with regardless of the “Right To Be Forgotten”; whether it has already been enacted in any one given place or locality or not, so these unfair articles or postings cannot damage the hard won reputation of both individuals and companies. So if you have a question about the “Right To Be Forgotten” or Online Reputation Management in general, and want to know how we can suppress negative posts so they’ll never harm you again, feel free to call us. Let us get rid of those unfair and unwanted search engine queries -- find out what we can do for you!

Back to Main Knowledge Base Page