Based on privacy concerns about social networking sites and big data，the EU established the “right to be forgotten” rule through double guarantees of jurisprudence and statutory law，giving information main body the right to estoppel，the right to delete，and the right to self-determination of personal information. In local practice，a number of laws and regulations can be regarded as the legal source of the “right to be forgotten”，but from the perspective of legislative purposes and implementation premises，they are quite different from the EU’s essence of the “right to be forgotten” to protect the “right to self-determination of personal information”. From the judicial practice cases，it can be found that although the “right to be forgotten” has entered the judicial field of our country to some extent，its local practice shows a certain degree of particularity. This paper argues that the history of the eradication of the absence of culture and systems，the tradition of personal information self-determination and the lack of legal protection，the conservative attitude of judges in determining a new type of right，and the overall trend of big data industry becoming the national strategy can explain this particularity to some extent.