3 ms·

That’s interesting. The timeline here doesn’t dictate someone publishing the photo to Google. I expect Google crawled out and that they decided to use it in sea

That’s interesting. The timeline here doesn’t dictate someone publishing the photo to Google. I expect Google crawled out and that they decided to use it in search results and decided to collocate it with articles. Google search isn’t really a publishing platform, but they do have lots of money and lawyers, which counts for something, I guess.

akolbe 5y ago
Well, no one needs to publish the photo to Google. They just crawl the sites and display what they find on their search results pages. It's a little different with the Knowledge Graph panel shown in the top right corner of the Google search results page. Right now, that again shows the colour photo of the Florida White who had nothing to do with this. There's three pictures of him, and one of the actual perpetrator. https://www.google.com/search?q="nathaniel+white"+"serial+killer" https://www.google.com/search?q="nathaniel+white"+"serial+ki...
- akolbe 5y ago
  Google surely know about this—they were, after all, a party to the suit—but apparently are unable, or can't be bothered, to get it sorted.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  And that’s my point. I wonder how they could be covered by section 230. If a human read through a bunch of sources online and decided to answer a query with the wrong persons photo, they’d be liable. Google search is not a platform that users post content to. They crawl content and then decide what to share with users in response to queries.
  - akolbe 5y ago
    I think their defense is that it is all automated – an algorithm decides what to show. And none of the things shown were originally posted by Google. Google is "just the platform", which Section 230 exempts from liability. Otherwise Google would be legally responsible for every defamatory post included in its search results. It may be different when Google has been notified that there is a problem with its Knowledge Graph panel. As described in this article, they do fix those: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-knowledge-panel-shows-wrong-man-as-serial-killer/411676/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-knowledge-panel-s... Beats me why they haven't done so in this case.

akolbe 5y ago

Well, no one needs to publish the photo to Google. They just crawl the sites and display what they find on their search results pages. It's a little different with the Knowledge Graph panel shown in the top right corner of the Google search results page. Right now, that again shows the colour photo of the Florida White who had nothing to do with this. There's three pictures of him, and one of the actual perpetrator. https://www.google.com/search?q="nathaniel+white"+"serial+killer" https://www.google.com/search?q="nathaniel+white"+"serial+ki...

akolbe 5y ago
Google surely know about this—they were, after all, a party to the suit—but apparently are unable, or can't be bothered, to get it sorted.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
And that’s my point. I wonder how they could be covered by section 230. If a human read through a bunch of sources online and decided to answer a query with the wrong persons photo, they’d be liable. Google search is not a platform that users post content to. They crawl content and then decide what to share with users in response to queries.
- akolbe 5y ago
  I think their defense is that it is all automated – an algorithm decides what to show. And none of the things shown were originally posted by Google. Google is "just the platform", which Section 230 exempts from liability. Otherwise Google would be legally responsible for every defamatory post included in its search results. It may be different when Google has been notified that there is a problem with its Knowledge Graph panel. As described in this article, they do fix those: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-knowledge-panel-shows-wrong-man-as-serial-killer/411676/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-knowledge-panel-s... Beats me why they haven't done so in this case.