4 ms·

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 di

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.
      - ori_b 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. And the point is that this is stupid. This is like suing a newsstand for displaying the headlines from a local newspaper that is defaming you. This is not publishing.
        mentat 11y ago
        I think it's a bit of a stretch to just call Google a "newsstand". If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what point are they publishing? (Especially if they're excerpting papers to promote them.)
        ori_b 11y ago
        > If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what point are they publishing? At the point that they're producing the content. Anyone that's simply regurgitating someone else's content is not publishing.
netheril96 11y ago
> Inaction isn't an option. You create a false dichotomy by presenting only two options: suing Google or sitting still and suffering through the defamation. But she has another recourse, a recourse that long existed before Google did: suing those who created the false information in the first place.
- andmarios 11y ago
  No, I didn't write anything like that. I said that some search results can cause serious problems and there should be a legal framework to prevent this. Inaction is ignoring these issues and letting affected people suffer while fighting battles they can't win. The solution you suggest isn't in touch with reality. The people who created the false information probably aren't (they or their business) in the same country as the victim. A legal battle can be very long and very expensive. If the victim is jobless for example and can't find a job due to the false information, how can he/she go sue an entity in a foreign country? What prevents the perpetrators from creating a new company with the same data in a different country? Google isn't in the wrong but they acquired so much power, that now they also have responsibility to help innocent people affected very negatively by their business.

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.
    - ori_b 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. And the point is that this is stupid. This is like suing a newsstand for displaying the headlines from a local newspaper that is defaming you. This is not publishing.
      - mentat 11y ago
        I think it's a bit of a stretch to just call Google a "newsstand". If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what point are they publishing? (Especially if they're excerpting papers to promote them.)
        ori_b 11y ago
        > If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what point are they publishing? At the point that they're producing the content. Anyone that's simply regurgitating someone else's content is not publishing.

netheril96 11y ago

> Inaction isn't an option. You create a false dichotomy by presenting only two options: suing Google or sitting still and suffering through the defamation. But she has another recourse, a recourse that long existed before Google did: suing those who created the false information in the first place.

andmarios 11y ago
No, I didn't write anything like that. I said that some search results can cause serious problems and there should be a legal framework to prevent this. Inaction is ignoring these issues and letting affected people suffer while fighting battles they can't win. The solution you suggest isn't in touch with reality. The people who created the false information probably aren't (they or their business) in the same country as the victim. A legal battle can be very long and very expensive. If the victim is jobless for example and can't find a job due to the false information, how can he/she go sue an entity in a foreign country? What prevents the perpetrators from creating a new company with the same data in a different country? Google isn't in the wrong but they acquired so much power, that now they also have responsibility to help innocent people affected very negatively by their business.