4 ms·
That example has absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230. Google’s ad design is all on Google. If it were illegal, Sec 230 wouldn’t protect them. And while Google
by IAmEveryone 7y ago
That example has absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230. Google’s ad design is all on Google. If it were illegal, Sec 230 wouldn’t protect them. And while Google might be protected against liability for Mapquest’s business practices, Mapquest isn’t. If their behavior is harmful and illegal, they are liable.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoMapQuest did nothing wrong in this example. The problem is the fake sites that are taking the top spot in search results above the legitimate MapQuest link when you search Google for MapQuest, and Google refuses to delist them. And of course, Google lets people buy ads for other companies' trademarks, which is a whole different ball of issues. (MapQuest is a popular one for malicious sites to pretend to be because most of the people searching for it are seniors... they heard about it twenty years ago and then never moved on from searching for it when they want directions somewhere.)
- spaced-out 7y agoWhat does this have to do with Section 230?
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoThe moment someone points out Google makes a huge amount of money on scams and malware, and due to Section 230, can't really be held responsible for it.
- bryan_w 7y agoFining Google doesn't help the problem there, you would want to work with Google to find out who made the deceptive ad and deal with them so they can't continue on to hurt more people
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoGoogle knows who they are: They're business partners.