6 ms·

You should seriously consider suing for defamation if this isn't fixed within a few days. This is an egregious error, especially if it was done by an automated

by cwkoss 5y ago

You should seriously consider suing for defamation if this isn't fixed within a few days. This is an egregious error, especially if it was done by an automated system (and this could be a systemic issue affecting many others). I think you have a decent chance of getting a five figure+ settlement from this. Talk to a lawyer about your options. EDIT: When I search "Hristo Georgiev" (from US IP) there is no longer an image in the infobox. (As of 21:55:10 UTC, June 24, 2021) I think a google engineer saw this HN post :-D (You could still talk to a lawyer - remedying it now does not alter the fact that you were previously defamed. But Google has a stronger position having now remedied it)

Cheezemansam 5y ago
>I think you have a decent chance of getting a five figure+ settlement from this. Against Google? I am more inclined to think the dude is actually a serial killer than that he has a chance of winning a defamation suit.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  "Google wrongly called me a serial killer" is a story many news outlets would love to run. He has the capacity to give them massive amounts of bad press, in a time where US regulators and politicians are closely looking at the dangers of automated algorithms from tech monopolies. I think he has a very good chance of receiving a settlement, Google will not want to take this to court.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    We are lucky because Google is not running a DNA service. Otherwise, who knows whether they will link to him to a serial killer.
    - jhbadger 5y ago
      Although weirdly enough 23 & Me's CEO Anne Wojcicki is Sergey Brin's ex-wife.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ar_lan 5y ago
        And she is the sister of Youtube's CEO. :)
        nurgasemetey 5y ago
        So much collusion :)
ElijahLynn 5y ago
A post further down by neil_s, about 2 hours ago (20:21 UTC), says they filed a bug with the knowledge graph team at Google. Direct link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100
Kaizeras 5y ago
Author here - Given that I‘m not in the US puts me at a disadvantage. But if you can forward me a good lawyer who is willing to work with me on this, I may give it a shot.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  I don't think that is necessarily a disadvantage - it could even work to your benefit as most of Google's legal muscle is in the US. Did some googling (lol), was looking for any lawyers who have won successful defamation cases against Google. The top results that were successful suits in non-US jurisdictions (Australia, Japan, Ireland, Hong Kong). Ex. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/libel-defamation/931462/google-is-a-publisher-and-can-be-sued-for-defamation https://www.mondaq.com/australia/libel-defamation/931462/goo... I am not a lawyer, I just find law very interesting. I'd recommend reaching out to a few lawyers that deal with defamation claims in your current jurisdiction to see if they think you have a claim.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Google operates globally, and your country’s laws might actually be more friendly to libel lawsuits.
AdamGibbins 5y ago
In many countries you can't sue for defamation as easily as you appear to be able to the US. In the UK its required that you demonstrate loss or reputational damage, given how obvious it is that this is a mistake and the speed in which it was fixed, I think its highly unlikely to stand up in court. Simply calling someone a name isn't enough. OP appears to be in Switzerland, where I'm not familiar with the laws.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dajeuii 5y ago
  You have it backwards, suing for defamation in the UK is considerably easier than in the US. The 1A in the US makes defamation and label very hard to prove - you must demonstrate that the statement is false, that the defamer knew it was false, and that you suffered damages as a result. All three must be met. In the UK malicious intent is all that is needed - even if the statement is in fact true.
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    In this particular case it would still be difficult to demonstrate malicious intent for an algorithmic decision. I wonder if defamation laws need to be extended to cover defamation by negligence?
    - j16sdiz 5y ago
      Cover defamation by negligence would have very board implication. Basically this meant you have to do research for everything you said. Could be a good thing, but this is not how the society works.
  - lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
    With respect, I think you've got it quite wrong. On the question of proving damages, that is the same in England and the US: both make a distinction between libel (or slander) per se and per quod. Libel per se covers statements that require no proof of damage because they are inherently damaging on the face of it. Falsely stating that someone is a serial killer who murdered five women is to say they are guilty of a crime of moral turpitude, one of the criteria recognised as actionable per se in both England and the USA. In the USA, you have the issue of the application of the New York Times v Sullivan standard which grants First Amendment protection to potentially defamatory statements made about a public figure requiring proof of actual malice. Because of the press freedom protections contained in the First Amendment, statements about a public figure (or a limited purpose public figure) are granted a higher degree of protection. If a person is a public figure, then you would need to show that the person making the defamatory statement knew it was false, but if they are not a public figure, then that requirement does not apply. I think it rather unlikely that the present facts would lead to the Sullivan standard being applied: other than having a small personal website/blog to discuss programming issues, the OP is not a "public figure". Regarding malicious intent, you don't need to show that in England. It helps if you can: malicious intent undermines a number of defences including honest opinion, and the publication on a matter of public interest defence (s4 Defamation Act 2013, and before that the Reynolds test), but it does not undermine truth as a defence. The burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement does rest on the defendant in England in a way it may not in other jurisdictions. Malicious intent also goes to remedies. (It also wouldn't apply here: Google's algorithm cocking up is not "malicious intent", it is merely AI—automated incompetence.) What the post you are replying to was likely referring to is the application of the "serious harm" test under s1 of the Defamation Act 2013, taken along with the requirement that the defamation amounted to "real and substantial tort" under the test established in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. While I have considerable sympathy for the OP, the serious harm test is hard to find as you'd have to establish how many people actually saw the material and how many people were led to believe he is a serial killer rather than a person who happens to unluckily share the same name as a serial killer.
gitgud 5y ago
In a sitcom like "Silicon Valley" I can imagine Google having to defend their algorithm in court, and prove he actually is a serial killer...
- unishark 5y ago
  then the surprise twist during credits, while walking home after narrowly winning the suit against Google due to an impassioned statement on the stand, he murders someone!
  - efreak 5y ago
    Sail not a _serial_ murderer though. You'd need a few more people for that.
BeefWellington 5y ago
I wonder if Wikipedia would have a cause of action here too; they're similarly shown to be falsely accusing a person via the inclusion of a photo which is not in their article.
- wildmanx 5y ago
  Why is the top thread on HN about everybody suing everybody? Geez people, calm down. Nobody was hurt, nobody suffered any loss, we all had a good laugh, and hopefully we all learned a lesson about what technology does, which responsibilities we all have in building better systems, and that humans, when building such systems, make mistakes. Nobody had malicious intent, on the contrary, the intent was to provide people with information when searching for it (whether in the name of selling ads or not is a different question). Why do we need to pull lawyers and courts into this? Lawyers cost a lot of money and judges should not have to waste their time with this kind of thing. There are actual criminals out there, let lawyers and judges focus their energy on those. P.S.: Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that it happened. Of course it's bad, needs to be fixed, and be prevented for next time. But screaming "sue them!" just feels like dramatically overboard.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Google skimps on customer support because it is economically rational - the legal cost to them for the consequences of criminal or unethical acts perpetrated by their systems is much less than the cost of adequately staffing CS. It is good for society when Google has to pay for their mistakes, because it encourages them to provide higher quality service and be more responsive. Just letting it go encourages them to keep cutting quality of service, because they can.
ar_lan 5y ago
The truth of this is he'd probably be blocklisted from FAANG and most of the rest of the industry. This is sort of a lose-lose situation.

by cwkoss 5y ago

Cheezemansam 5y ago

>I think you have a decent chance of getting a five figure+ settlement from this. Against Google? I am more inclined to think the dude is actually a serial killer than that he has a chance of winning a defamation suit.

cwkoss 5y ago
"Google wrongly called me a serial killer" is a story many news outlets would love to run. He has the capacity to give them massive amounts of bad press, in a time where US regulators and politicians are closely looking at the dangers of automated algorithms from tech monopolies. I think he has a very good chance of receiving a settlement, Google will not want to take this to court.
- temp8964 5y ago
  We are lucky because Google is not running a DNA service. Otherwise, who knows whether they will link to him to a serial killer.
  - jhbadger 5y ago
    Although weirdly enough 23 & Me's CEO Anne Wojcicki is Sergey Brin's ex-wife.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ar_lan 5y ago
      And she is the sister of Youtube's CEO. :)
      - nurgasemetey 5y ago
        So much collusion :)

ElijahLynn 5y ago

A post further down by neil_s, about 2 hours ago (20:21 UTC), says they filed a bug with the knowledge graph team at Google. Direct link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100

Kaizeras 5y ago

Author here - Given that I‘m not in the US puts me at a disadvantage. But if you can forward me a good lawyer who is willing to work with me on this, I may give it a shot.

cwkoss 5y ago
I don't think that is necessarily a disadvantage - it could even work to your benefit as most of Google's legal muscle is in the US. Did some googling (lol), was looking for any lawyers who have won successful defamation cases against Google. The top results that were successful suits in non-US jurisdictions (Australia, Japan, Ireland, Hong Kong). Ex. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/libel-defamation/931462/google-is-a-publisher-and-can-be-sued-for-defamation https://www.mondaq.com/australia/libel-defamation/931462/goo... I am not a lawyer, I just find law very interesting. I'd recommend reaching out to a few lawyers that deal with defamation claims in your current jurisdiction to see if they think you have a claim.
ummonk 5y ago
Google operates globally, and your country’s laws might actually be more friendly to libel lawsuits.

AdamGibbins 5y ago

In many countries you can't sue for defamation as easily as you appear to be able to the US. In the UK its required that you demonstrate loss or reputational damage, given how obvious it is that this is a mistake and the speed in which it was fixed, I think its highly unlikely to stand up in court. Simply calling someone a name isn't enough. OP appears to be in Switzerland, where I'm not familiar with the laws.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dajeuii 5y ago
You have it backwards, suing for defamation in the UK is considerably easier than in the US. The 1A in the US makes defamation and label very hard to prove - you must demonstrate that the statement is false, that the defamer knew it was false, and that you suffered damages as a result. All three must be met. In the UK malicious intent is all that is needed - even if the statement is in fact true.
- Clewza313 5y ago
  In this particular case it would still be difficult to demonstrate malicious intent for an algorithmic decision. I wonder if defamation laws need to be extended to cover defamation by negligence?
  - j16sdiz 5y ago
    Cover defamation by negligence would have very board implication. Basically this meant you have to do research for everything you said. Could be a good thing, but this is not how the society works.
- lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
  With respect, I think you've got it quite wrong. On the question of proving damages, that is the same in England and the US: both make a distinction between libel (or slander) per se and per quod. Libel per se covers statements that require no proof of damage because they are inherently damaging on the face of it. Falsely stating that someone is a serial killer who murdered five women is to say they are guilty of a crime of moral turpitude, one of the criteria recognised as actionable per se in both England and the USA. In the USA, you have the issue of the application of the New York Times v Sullivan standard which grants First Amendment protection to potentially defamatory statements made about a public figure requiring proof of actual malice. Because of the press freedom protections contained in the First Amendment, statements about a public figure (or a limited purpose public figure) are granted a higher degree of protection. If a person is a public figure, then you would need to show that the person making the defamatory statement knew it was false, but if they are not a public figure, then that requirement does not apply. I think it rather unlikely that the present facts would lead to the Sullivan standard being applied: other than having a small personal website/blog to discuss programming issues, the OP is not a "public figure". Regarding malicious intent, you don't need to show that in England. It helps if you can: malicious intent undermines a number of defences including honest opinion, and the publication on a matter of public interest defence (s4 Defamation Act 2013, and before that the Reynolds test), but it does not undermine truth as a defence. The burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement does rest on the defendant in England in a way it may not in other jurisdictions. Malicious intent also goes to remedies. (It also wouldn't apply here: Google's algorithm cocking up is not "malicious intent", it is merely AI—automated incompetence.) What the post you are replying to was likely referring to is the application of the "serious harm" test under s1 of the Defamation Act 2013, taken along with the requirement that the defamation amounted to "real and substantial tort" under the test established in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. While I have considerable sympathy for the OP, the serious harm test is hard to find as you'd have to establish how many people actually saw the material and how many people were led to believe he is a serial killer rather than a person who happens to unluckily share the same name as a serial killer.

gitgud 5y ago

In a sitcom like "Silicon Valley" I can imagine Google having to defend their algorithm in court, and prove he actually is a serial killer...

unishark 5y ago
then the surprise twist during credits, while walking home after narrowly winning the suit against Google due to an impassioned statement on the stand, he murders someone!
- efreak 5y ago
  Sail not a _serial_ murderer though. You'd need a few more people for that.

BeefWellington 5y ago

I wonder if Wikipedia would have a cause of action here too; they're similarly shown to be falsely accusing a person via the inclusion of a photo which is not in their article.

wildmanx 5y ago
Why is the top thread on HN about everybody suing everybody? Geez people, calm down. Nobody was hurt, nobody suffered any loss, we all had a good laugh, and hopefully we all learned a lesson about what technology does, which responsibilities we all have in building better systems, and that humans, when building such systems, make mistakes. Nobody had malicious intent, on the contrary, the intent was to provide people with information when searching for it (whether in the name of selling ads or not is a different question). Why do we need to pull lawyers and courts into this? Lawyers cost a lot of money and judges should not have to waste their time with this kind of thing. There are actual criminals out there, let lawyers and judges focus their energy on those. P.S.: Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that it happened. Of course it's bad, needs to be fixed, and be prevented for next time. But screaming "sue them!" just feels like dramatically overboard.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Google skimps on customer support because it is economically rational - the legal cost to them for the consequences of criminal or unethical acts perpetrated by their systems is much less than the cost of adequately staffing CS. It is good for society when Google has to pay for their mistakes, because it encourages them to provide higher quality service and be more responsive. Just letting it go encourages them to keep cutting quality of service, because they can.

ar_lan 5y ago

The truth of this is he'd probably be blocklisted from FAANG and most of the rest of the industry. This is sort of a lose-lose situation.