5 ms·

'Publisher' Google ordered to pay $40k in damages for defaming Melbourne lawyer

43 points by empressplay 7y ago

_trampeltier 7y ago
How on earth are such things in 2020 possible?
- lihaciudaniel 7y ago
  You think Google couldn't spend more money on lawyers and attorneys, they probably just didn't mind?
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  When you've spend a decade acting like a publisher, don't be surprised when the courts start acting like it's one despite big G lying about it.
dna_polymerase 7y ago
> "The Google search engine … is not a passive tool," she wrote in her 98-page judgement. > "It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention. How are people this stupid allowed to become justices?
- clouddrover 7y ago
  How is it stupid? It's true. Google controls the results and the presentation of the results. The way Google behaves in the world has real world effects. Google hiding behind an argument that it's all automated and nothing to do with them isn't very convincing.
  - adamredwoods 7y ago
    They were linked to a Wikipedia page.
    - clouddrover 7y ago
      So you agree with the judge: Google controls the results and the presentation of the results.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    Hang on, I'm about to make HN culpable. Let's see what they do. According to ABC, George Defteros was charged with the murder of Carl Williams and other underworld figures.
    - Veen 7y ago
      He was charged with conspiracy to murder, not murder.
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        Oh dear, now you're part of it as well.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Well, it's your comment, you submitted it yourself, and you agreed to "release, indemnify and hold Y Combinator and its affiliates and their officers, employees, directors and agents harmless from any from any and all losses, damages, expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, rights, claims, actions of any kind and injury (including death) arising out of or relating to your use of the Site or any related information, any User Content (...)". You did read the ToS[0], didn't you? (Though seriously, did anyone? I didn't, and only opened that page to CTRL+F for a counterpoint right now :).) -- [0] - https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        They don't know who I am so the buck is going to stop here.
- sarakayakomzin 7y ago
  >How are people this stupid allowed to become justices? You don't get to claim to be a platform for immunity when you actively fix and modify search results for your own gain, don't be so obtuse.
- XelNika 7y ago
  The quote at the end could explain the issue. > "Her Honour has found that Google is a publisher of the defamatory imputations once Google receives notice of a defamatory publication online as a result of the use of its search engine," he said. I think it is reasonable to argue that Google should remove results if they are notified of defamation. I hope that was the ruling in this case, because anything else would set a terrifying precedent.
- unishark 7y ago
  I liked this part criticizing googlebot's poor research skills > "I could not be satisfied that it was reasonable for Google to rely on Wikipedia as a reputable source, given that its own Guidelines acknowledge the variable quality of Wikipedia pages," Justice Richards wrote.
- chvid 7y ago
  The two sentences you quoted are completely correct. In fact claiming the opposite would be kind of ... stupid?
tiew9Vii 7y ago
Australia's defamation laws are some of the toughest in the world and not in a good way. There's been a few new articles about people having to pay big damages due to online reviews, social media posts[1] and how it stopped women speaking out over the me to stuff over here[2]. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-manly-residents-leads-to-120-000-defamation-payout-20190521-p51pkq.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-manly... [2] https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/social-justice-uts/news/metoo-exposes-problems-australias-defamation-laws https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/so...
astrec 7y ago
To add a little colour here, Mr Defteros was previously awarded damages and costs when he sued the authors of the article (and book chapter). Google was notified of the defamatory material in February 2016, but did not remove it until December 2016 after it had been accessed ~150 times. In this case the court found -- paraphrasing a lengthy judgement here -- that having being notified of the defamatory material, and failing to remove it, Google is a publisher of defamatory imputations. As such damages were awarded.
- htfu 7y ago
  Thanks for this, seems then things aren't quite as bizarre as the article makes them appear. Any more background info? Mostly in terms of the takedown request. A successful suit giving the right to get anything directly based on the source material scrubbed elsewhere seems fair enough. But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. Clear ground rules as in the EU seem like the only answer here.
  - astrec 7y ago
    > Any more background info? This was the sixth case, including appeals, relating to this specific matter. > But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Without wanting to appear too glib, Google also indexes all the judgements! Otherwise, you raise an interesting question which will perhaps be answered in a subsequent appeal.
    - htfu 7y ago
      It would appear judge may want to consider suing ABC to force them have you consult on any further reporting. Thanks for clearing things up.
  - XelNika 7y ago
    > Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. That is exactly what the DMCA is and Google does abide by that. This case is about Google's compliance with the law, not whether the law is fair.
tumetab1 7y ago
Seems like a good wake up call to Google and Google Users. There's an editorial reason for Wikipedia summaries. There's an editorial reason why some results are promoted and others are pushed down. Even Google rules to promote HTTPS sites can be considered an editorial decision. If that is good or bad is interpretation. Google search results are not just links popularity ranking so it make sense to remove some non-publisher protections.
techslave 7y ago
it’s too bad the damages are too small to incentivise change of any kind for google

43 points by empressplay 7y ago

_trampeltier 7y ago

How on earth are such things in 2020 possible?

lihaciudaniel 7y ago
You think Google couldn't spend more money on lawyers and attorneys, they probably just didn't mind?
buzzkillington 7y ago
When you've spend a decade acting like a publisher, don't be surprised when the courts start acting like it's one despite big G lying about it.

dna_polymerase 7y ago

> "The Google search engine … is not a passive tool," she wrote in her 98-page judgement. > "It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention. How are people this stupid allowed to become justices?

clouddrover 7y ago
How is it stupid? It's true. Google controls the results and the presentation of the results. The way Google behaves in the world has real world effects. Google hiding behind an argument that it's all automated and nothing to do with them isn't very convincing.
- adamredwoods 7y ago
  They were linked to a Wikipedia page.
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    So you agree with the judge: Google controls the results and the presentation of the results.
- renewiltord 7y ago
  Hang on, I'm about to make HN culpable. Let's see what they do. According to ABC, George Defteros was charged with the murder of Carl Williams and other underworld figures.
  - Veen 7y ago
    He was charged with conspiracy to murder, not murder.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      Oh dear, now you're part of it as well.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Well, it's your comment, you submitted it yourself, and you agreed to "release, indemnify and hold Y Combinator and its affiliates and their officers, employees, directors and agents harmless from any from any and all losses, damages, expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, rights, claims, actions of any kind and injury (including death) arising out of or relating to your use of the Site or any related information, any User Content (...)". You did read the ToS[0], didn't you? (Though seriously, did anyone? I didn't, and only opened that page to CTRL+F for a counterpoint right now :).) -- [0] - https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      They don't know who I am so the buck is going to stop here.
sarakayakomzin 7y ago
>How are people this stupid allowed to become justices? You don't get to claim to be a platform for immunity when you actively fix and modify search results for your own gain, don't be so obtuse.
XelNika 7y ago
The quote at the end could explain the issue. > "Her Honour has found that Google is a publisher of the defamatory imputations once Google receives notice of a defamatory publication online as a result of the use of its search engine," he said. I think it is reasonable to argue that Google should remove results if they are notified of defamation. I hope that was the ruling in this case, because anything else would set a terrifying precedent.
unishark 7y ago
I liked this part criticizing googlebot's poor research skills > "I could not be satisfied that it was reasonable for Google to rely on Wikipedia as a reputable source, given that its own Guidelines acknowledge the variable quality of Wikipedia pages," Justice Richards wrote.
chvid 7y ago
The two sentences you quoted are completely correct. In fact claiming the opposite would be kind of ... stupid?

tiew9Vii 7y ago

Australia's defamation laws are some of the toughest in the world and not in a good way. There's been a few new articles about people having to pay big damages due to online reviews, social media posts[1] and how it stopped women speaking out over the me to stuff over here[2]. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-manly-residents-leads-to-120-000-defamation-payout-20190521-p51pkq.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-manly... [2] https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/social-justice-uts/news/metoo-exposes-problems-australias-defamation-laws https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/so...

astrec 7y ago

To add a little colour here, Mr Defteros was previously awarded damages and costs when he sued the authors of the article (and book chapter). Google was notified of the defamatory material in February 2016, but did not remove it until December 2016 after it had been accessed ~150 times. In this case the court found -- paraphrasing a lengthy judgement here -- that having being notified of the defamatory material, and failing to remove it, Google is a publisher of defamatory imputations. As such damages were awarded.

htfu 7y ago
Thanks for this, seems then things aren't quite as bizarre as the article makes them appear. Any more background info? Mostly in terms of the takedown request. A successful suit giving the right to get anything directly based on the source material scrubbed elsewhere seems fair enough. But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. Clear ground rules as in the EU seem like the only answer here.
- astrec 7y ago
  > Any more background info? This was the sixth case, including appeals, relating to this specific matter. > But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Without wanting to appear too glib, Google also indexes all the judgements! Otherwise, you raise an interesting question which will perhaps be answered in a subsequent appeal.
  - htfu 7y ago
    It would appear judge may want to consider suing ABC to force them have you consult on any further reporting. Thanks for clearing things up.
- XelNika 7y ago
  > Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. That is exactly what the DMCA is and Google does abide by that. This case is about Google's compliance with the law, not whether the law is fair.

tumetab1 7y ago

Seems like a good wake up call to Google and Google Users. There's an editorial reason for Wikipedia summaries. There's an editorial reason why some results are promoted and others are pushed down. Even Google rules to promote HTTPS sites can be considered an editorial decision. If that is good or bad is interpretation. Google search results are not just links popularity ranking so it make sense to remove some non-publisher protections.

techslave 7y ago

it’s too bad the damages are too small to incentivise change of any kind for google