Reply To: Supreme Court unconvinced by North Carolina’s Facebook argument

#8310
Avatar
Jeremy

Since my state does not have such a ban like North Carolina tried to impose, I have been trying to do exactly what your suggestion is for over two years now. Unfortunately, Homefacts is not the only site that copies information from the registries. Furthermore, these sites have really high search engine rankings as a whole, so social media accounts don’t always bump them unless they are highly active accounts. I have successfully bumped Homefacts to page 3 for my name, but another company doing the same thing ended up on page one of Google. My Bing results are a different story though. There is nothing on my status on Bing until about page 3.

I wonder if our argument could be equal protection of the law or something like that. If an offender had a similar name to a celebrity, their status would basically remain hidden online without regard to social media, however, if the offender has a rather unique name (of which I qualify), they will have to put their name on as many links as possible to bury the damning links. This doesn’t seem fair to me.