Is it Law or a ProbofConsc, that I can not find "google+" law is:deleted, my question about Google+ being deleted or recoverable data. I can not read my own profile. I am not banned, I am not in trouble, but only the superadmins can read my profile. myactivity.google.com/myactivity?&q=stackexchange%20google does not have it, because My Activity from GOogle does not rememember.

That lawyer/moderator quippled (pardon my British) the words "Nice try." I do not rem their name, and it does not show in searches. A wiretap would not even find this data. It requires thinking about the data available completely, in terminology even some lawyers do not even understand. To put it lightly.

Essentially I wonder now, if you know, the Legal section has appropriated rules not written, about how a StackExchange question forms and gets votes. That's a question that can get votes, but puts Stack in the bullseye of Google, and SE relies on Google, and lives (and breathes...) for Google SEO "Laws". We all know SE does not make money, it makes influence.

Influence under Law, and Law Enforcement under the influence, of SEO Laws, for example. Otherwise my questions fly enough, just here there seem to be problems.I mean the degree of attention would be codable into a Legal Framework, as special attention not at any other questions. In the Law section it could be a unique conversation, because here people know the Law too, how is that applied, are we going to code for Law?

Legal Drunk History, would be a nice addition to the series imdb.com/title/tt1503278 /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_History which has a part or two about who wrote the Law, while thinking very, um, clearly. How many stories (legal stories... and legal writing) are not being told in that way. :∫ The influence of StackExchange of law is not exactly easy for the NYT to write about either, would sound pathetic now 20 years late like "Who was thinking...?".

I mean I think you would have to be drunk to delete Google+, for a legal example. As a legal example. With many legal examples on Google+. (My theory is the issue was Google did not want to moderate, would have required Values. Google employees were just as suspect.)

If time was spent analyzing the full question inputs publicly, instead of deleting posts for grammar reasons and just not getting "Views" for Google SEO Legal Reasons... like not being profit potential, as if a legal reason. We could have a meta-nofollow ref on profiles, so officially Google would not judge the rest of the site for your moms' questions...

The deep irony is Quora still shows almost all my data publicly even if moderated, while StackExchange hides from "View" and gets S.E., I bet, better Google PageRank SEO than Quora.