In the beginning, it was just a little town by the sea. Then people started surfing the waves. They built sites, bars, cafes, markets, temples, libraries, schools, police stations, casinos, marriage brokers and even brothels.In this world in which the rules were still not completely formed, they started to live together. As cities and towns started to expand, new people and new lifestyles formed: Movie theaters, black markets and pirates, et cetera. Of course, we shouldn't forget newspapers. After all, people need to be informed and inform others.We are talking about the Internet. Once a place we occasionally visited, it has become a hub we cannot pry ourselves away from. We celebrate and mourn there; our understanding and happiness resides there; even our protests start there. While the governing area of the Internet became vast, little is left out of the web.A scientist, Tim Berners-Lee, invented the World Wide Web 26 years ago. Twenty five years after the first draft of the first proposal, Berners-Lee told the Guardian of the necessity of a new Magna Carta with these words: "We need a global constitution – a bill of rights." (An online Magna Carta: Berners-Lee calls for bill of rights for web, March 12, 2014)Let's read part of the report: "Sir Tim Berners-Lee told the Guardian the web had come under increasing attack from governments and corporate influence and that new rules were needed to protect the "open, neutral" system.""Berners-Lee's Magna Carta plan is to be taken up as part of an initiative called "the web we want," which calls on people to generate a digital bill of rights in each country – a statement of principles he hopes will be supported by public institutions, government officials and corporations."Unless we have an open, neutral Internet we can rely on without worrying about what's happening at the back door, we can't have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It's not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it."Who is the "we" in the Berners-Lee interview I wonder? Is it the giant web companies, regular users or every individual whether they use the Internet or not? The answer lies in a close look at the Magna Carta."The Magna Carta was the first document imposed upon a king of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights.""The 1215 charter required King John to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary – for example, by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land."These two sentences show us two important characteristics of the Magna Carta. Many historians say this was a constitutional law. Indeed, it limited the authority of the king. But this restriction was more beneficial to feudal lords than to the common folk. As the second sentence indicates, this aimed to protect their rights and render them as the main authority on their lands. This law was implemented after a long power struggle.The situation today greatly resembles the Magna Carta. Giant web corporations are painting themselves as knights in shining armor, while slowly turning into feudal barons. Conflicts arise between state laws and their policies. I believe that while these conflicts seems to be about transparency or openness, it is really is about pragmatism and self-interest. In this light, this question still remains unanswered: If we discard officials, how do we handle bullies on the web? How will we overcome the fear of surveillance? For example, how will we approach a situation in which so-called journalists produce lies about us and search engines make them available to the general population? This is a subject of constant debate between readers' representatives and ombudsmen: How will we respond to requests for content removal?In this current age, digital memory records and copies are distributed everywhere. These words and rumors remain in the virtual world that is now a part of our lives, and they surface right when we least expect. Therefore, from time to time our readers request that we remove old content that includes their names or that of their loved ones or their corporations.These requests can be categorized roughly like this:- They claim the news article is either incorrect or incomplete.- The acquittal of the person in the news article.- They claim the news article is not up to date anymore.- Effects of news articles on third parties (children, loved ones).If we look at this from our country's perspective, usually we recommend our readers appeal to the courts. But the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on May 13 provides a different perspective. The court ruled that if the personal content on the Internet is unrelated, invalid or not up to date, it must be removed if that is what an individual wants. It is a precedent-setting and binding ruling based on the concept of the Right to be Forgotten, which the European Union started to discuss in 1995 and provided a different aspect in 2012. This is only valid in EU countries and on Google. For it to be effective and significant, it has to be valid for other countries and search engines.After this ruling, Google formed a committee with a couple of authorities on the field to work on this matter. They will inspect requests and make decisions. This caused another dispute as well. By forming such a committee is Google trying to protect its authority on the matter? Also, whether these decisions are legitimate or not is also fueling debates. After the ECJ ruling, Google released a statement saying this ruling will serve oppressive governments. This is a problematic approach because the ruling aims to protect the rights and privacy of regular people. Google should abandon its political obsessions and put ethical principles over pragmatism, while implementing the ruling on a global scale. Other search engines should follow this as well.Before this ruling, ombudsmen shared the opinion that we should accept the reality of virtual memory and learn to live with it. Now, I believe there is hope for individuals. We will see the process in time, but the EU has set the standard, and it is quite significant.