4 ms·

I think Google is not wrong here. It's just a search engine that allows you to search for a phrase on websites all over the internet. It doesn't (or at least sh

by Avalaxy 11y ago

I think Google is not wrong here. It's just a search engine that allows you to search for a phrase on websites all over the internet. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. It should be left as an exercise to the reader to determine what information is factual and what information is not factual. I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not.

will_brown 11y ago
>It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. But it does, by its very nature Google removes some websites from its results and attaches a value to websites it does include in the form of Google search result rankings. It appears in other cases the court also found issue with the autocomplete functions produced by Google. Also it would not appear anyone expected Google's algorithm to determine truth as you suggest, at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content. And I'm sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of "false" information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information. The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information instead, not a search engine linking to that information. But, of course, Google is a bigger target, and makes for an easier emotional argument about "those foreign corporations", and foreign courts seem all too happy to entertain such arguments. I don't care whether the original site's posting is true or false; I hope Google wins this on appeal either way. (By contrast, I'd have absolutely no problem with a defamation judgment against the actual site hosting the information, and if that site removes it, so will Google.)
  - will_brown 11y ago
    >And I'm sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of "false" information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information. Google already does this...they remove websites from their results and they make a decision on the veracity of the remaining information through their results. As to the dinosaur fossils...they don't have standing to sue over defamation, so Google is protected from making the hard decisions there. >The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information... Where you find Google is just "a search engine linking to the information", according to the article, the court found Google was both publishing and promoting the defamation. I can see courts splitting on this issues for sure, so you might get your hope on appeal, but I don't think it is an intellectually dishonest conclusion to view search result/ads as more than "links" but impressions Google approves for publication in their search results. Traditionally, if someone were to publish something false in a newspaper the plaintiff could name the author, editor and newspaper publisher. I am not for limiting the rights of individuals over corporations. In fairness I recognize technology makes it easier than ever to publish/republish false statements, but I am more inclined to feel bad for the individual being defamed on a scale never seen before more than I am to feel bad for Google because the Court didn't buy their argument that they should not be liable because they are just a "search engine" and it would burden them to stop linking to false information about people.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > they make a decision on the veracity of the remaining information through their results No, they don't. They attempt to figure out which site you might be looking for based on the terms you typed in; relevance to your search terms may or may not be correlated with veracity. > As to the dinosaur fossils...they don't have standing to sue over defamation, so Google is protected from making the hard decisions there. The comment I replied to said the plaintiff had "contacted" Google, and expected that to suffice. I gave an example of people who "contact" Google and should rightfully be ignored. Now you're saying that those people don't have standing to sue so it's OK. Truth is the ultimate defense against defamation. You seem to be arguing that Google is in a position to judge whether content is defamation (which necessarily involves a determination of truth), based on nothing but someone contacting them. How, precisely, would you propose they do that? This particular court certainly didn't offer any insights there. > I am not for limiting the rights of individuals over corporations. Judgments should not under any circumstances depend on who the plaintiff or defendant are. This judgment is precedent for a similar suit against a far smaller defendant. I'm not concerned that Google will be deeply hurt by a six-figure court judgment and hope they win on appeal because it'll help their bottom line; I think this sets a completely broken precedent and I hope Google wins on appeal to reverse that. > Traditionally, if someone were to publish something false in a newspaper the plaintiff could name the author, editor and newspaper publisher. Of course. But that doesn't mean the plaintiff should be able to name a third-party who provides a list of headlines found in newspapers, especially not if they haven't actually sued the newspaper and won.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
You may want to consider that Google allegedly had knowledge of Ripoff Report's practices, and had already suspended their AdWords account because of unsavory business practices, but refused to remove the defamatory content against her: http://www.authorizedstatement.org/statements/authorized-statement-on-the-ripoff-report-on-professor-eric-goldman-by-dr-janice-duffy/ http://www.authorizedstatement.org/statements/authorized-sta...
humanrebar 11y ago
> I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not. Doesn't Google already do that with the Knowledge Graph?
vankap 11y ago
Ripoff Report should have been sued here instead of Google.
andmarios 11y ago
The problem is that Google isn't “just a search engine”, it is THE search engine. If someone wants to learn about you, he will “google” you. Of course Google didn't chose this, but on the other hand it worked hard to reach this position and keeps working hard to stay there. It is a very difficult matter to discuss and come up with some rules or limits but it is an issue that should be addressed. Google search results can destroy lives. Inaction isn't an option. With respect to freedom of speech and free trade, we should find some way to mitigate such problems. EU's “right to be forgotten” is a step towards a solution to this puzzle.
- gozur88 11y ago
  But it's not the search results that "can destroy lives". It's the website at the end of the search result. That is where the culpability lies.
  - will_brown 11y ago
    Why stop at the website? Using that logic it's not the website that destroys lives it's the author. But that's not how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation cases, and the reasoning is pretty sound. If the Google search result contains the false statement Google is now part of the problem.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      Actually, it is how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation cases. This is like suing the newsstand because the local paper is defaming you.
      - will_brown 11y ago
        Except, according to the article, in this case the Court found Google published and promoted the defamation vis-a-vis its search results. A newsstand may in fact be liable if they took a defamatory statement out of a paper and published that false statement like an ad/signage attached to the newsstand.
azakai 11y ago
> I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not. I don't think that's what she was asking for. She didn't expect Google's algorithms to automatically make things right. She did expect that when she contacted Google repeatedly, with what was a justified request (we can assume it was justified because she won in court), that Google would respond appropriately.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
I don't buy this "we're just a search engine" thing. Being just a search engine isn't an ethically neutral choice, merely because it's inaction. Here we see Google doing the equivalent of walking on by when someone's being roughed up.

by Avalaxy 11y ago

will_brown 11y ago

>It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. But it does, by its very nature Google removes some websites from its results and attaches a value to websites it does include in the form of Google search result rankings. It appears in other cases the court also found issue with the autocomplete functions produced by Google. Also it would not appear anyone expected Google's algorithm to determine truth as you suggest, at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content. And I'm sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of "false" information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information. The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information instead, not a search engine linking to that information. But, of course, Google is a bigger target, and makes for an easier emotional argument about "those foreign corporations", and foreign courts seem all too happy to entertain such arguments. I don't care whether the original site's posting is true or false; I hope Google wins this on appeal either way. (By contrast, I'd have absolutely no problem with a defamation judgment against the actual site hosting the information, and if that site removes it, so will Google.)
- will_brown 11y ago
  >And I'm sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of "false" information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information. Google already does this...they remove websites from their results and they make a decision on the veracity of the remaining information through their results. As to the dinosaur fossils...they don't have standing to sue over defamation, so Google is protected from making the hard decisions there. >The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information... Where you find Google is just "a search engine linking to the information", according to the article, the court found Google was both publishing and promoting the defamation. I can see courts splitting on this issues for sure, so you might get your hope on appeal, but I don't think it is an intellectually dishonest conclusion to view search result/ads as more than "links" but impressions Google approves for publication in their search results. Traditionally, if someone were to publish something false in a newspaper the plaintiff could name the author, editor and newspaper publisher. I am not for limiting the rights of individuals over corporations. In fairness I recognize technology makes it easier than ever to publish/republish false statements, but I am more inclined to feel bad for the individual being defamed on a scale never seen before more than I am to feel bad for Google because the Court didn't buy their argument that they should not be liable because they are just a "search engine" and it would burden them to stop linking to false information about people.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > they make a decision on the veracity of the remaining information through their results No, they don't. They attempt to figure out which site you might be looking for based on the terms you typed in; relevance to your search terms may or may not be correlated with veracity. > As to the dinosaur fossils...they don't have standing to sue over defamation, so Google is protected from making the hard decisions there. The comment I replied to said the plaintiff had "contacted" Google, and expected that to suffice. I gave an example of people who "contact" Google and should rightfully be ignored. Now you're saying that those people don't have standing to sue so it's OK. Truth is the ultimate defense against defamation. You seem to be arguing that Google is in a position to judge whether content is defamation (which necessarily involves a determination of truth), based on nothing but someone contacting them. How, precisely, would you propose they do that? This particular court certainly didn't offer any insights there. > I am not for limiting the rights of individuals over corporations. Judgments should not under any circumstances depend on who the plaintiff or defendant are. This judgment is precedent for a similar suit against a far smaller defendant. I'm not concerned that Google will be deeply hurt by a six-figure court judgment and hope they win on appeal because it'll help their bottom line; I think this sets a completely broken precedent and I hope Google wins on appeal to reverse that. > Traditionally, if someone were to publish something false in a newspaper the plaintiff could name the author, editor and newspaper publisher. Of course. But that doesn't mean the plaintiff should be able to name a third-party who provides a list of headlines found in newspapers, especially not if they haven't actually sued the newspaper and won.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

You may want to consider that Google allegedly had knowledge of Ripoff Report's practices, and had already suspended their AdWords account because of unsavory business practices, but refused to remove the defamatory content against her: http://www.authorizedstatement.org/statements/authorized-statement-on-the-ripoff-report-on-professor-eric-goldman-by-dr-janice-duffy/ http://www.authorizedstatement.org/statements/authorized-sta...

humanrebar 11y ago

> I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not. Doesn't Google already do that with the Knowledge Graph?

vankap 11y ago

Ripoff Report should have been sued here instead of Google.

andmarios 11y ago

The problem is that Google isn't “just a search engine”, it is THE search engine. If someone wants to learn about you, he will “google” you. Of course Google didn't chose this, but on the other hand it worked hard to reach this position and keeps working hard to stay there. It is a very difficult matter to discuss and come up with some rules or limits but it is an issue that should be addressed. Google search results can destroy lives. Inaction isn't an option. With respect to freedom of speech and free trade, we should find some way to mitigate such problems. EU's “right to be forgotten” is a step towards a solution to this puzzle.

gozur88 11y ago
But it's not the search results that "can destroy lives". It's the website at the end of the search result. That is where the culpability lies.
- will_brown 11y ago
  Why stop at the website? Using that logic it's not the website that destroys lives it's the author. But that's not how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation cases, and the reasoning is pretty sound. If the Google search result contains the false statement Google is now part of the problem.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Actually, it is how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation cases. This is like suing the newsstand because the local paper is defaming you.
    - will_brown 11y ago
      Except, according to the article, in this case the Court found Google published and promoted the defamation vis-a-vis its search results. A newsstand may in fact be liable if they took a defamatory statement out of a paper and published that false statement like an ad/signage attached to the newsstand.

azakai 11y ago

> I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not. I don't think that's what she was asking for. She didn't expect Google's algorithms to automatically make things right. She did expect that when she contacted Google repeatedly, with what was a justified request (we can assume it was justified because she won in court), that Google would respond appropriately.

JulianMorrison 11y ago

I don't buy this "we're just a search engine" thing. Being just a search engine isn't an ethically neutral choice, merely because it's inaction. Here we see Google doing the equivalent of walking on by when someone's being roughed up.