4 ms·

You probably don't believe a library or book store should be sued if they sell a book with defamatory content, so why do you think Google should be here? The c

You probably don't believe a library or book store should be sued if they sell a book with defamatory content, so why do you think Google should be here? The connection between wrongdoing by Google is even more attenuated here, since Google is mostly an indexer, with limited curation.

bhargav 3y ago
Libraries and bookstores curate all the time. Controversial books are not sold or removed.
rootusrootus 3y ago
Google exercises a great deal of editorial discretion on the content they present to the user. The days of 'mostly an indexer' stopped years ago.
542458 3y ago
If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it, complied, then restored it, was asked to remove it again, complied, restored it again, then finally started refusing to remove it, I’d say suing them is reasonable (which is what happened here as far as I can tell - the exact sequence of events is a bit hard to reconstruct).
- perihelions 3y ago
  - "If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it," Thankfully 100% unconstitutional in the US.
  - sdfghswe 3y ago
    Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional in the US. Different countries have different laws. If you can't abide by the laws of other countries, don't operate there.
    - notch898c 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - AdrianB1 3y ago
        The first sentence is true, the last one is trolling.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    No in the US libraries and bookstores are considered "distributors" so they have no obligation to actively review all of their content like "publishers" have, but when given notice they are still obligated to remove any content which violates the law, including defamatory content.
  - kgwgk 3y ago
    What part is “unconstitutional”? Informing? Asking? Removing?
  - whitemary 3y ago
    You aren't going to like this, but it turns out the US doesn't reliably enforce anything in its constitution, and even contradicts it on a constant basis. Effectively, the US is governed by an aggregate of very wealthy corporations who get what they want by bartering with politicians.
    - User23 3y ago
      You're along the right lines, but it's gnarlier than that. National politicians are more like WWE wrestlers or reality show contestants. They have some freedom of action, but not much, and they must stay within the lines of the script. Tellingly, none of them actually legislate anymore, with the exception of the occasional bit of grandstanding that isn't intended to ever get past being a bill. All the bills that do become laws are written by private lawyers working for known or unknown principals, who then hand them off to lobbyists, who then arrange for a politician to sign off on it. We receive some clues as to who the real shot callers are, because certain agenda items reliably receive bipartisan support. So for example we can conclude that whoever really runs the USA is fully in favor of involvement in the Ukraine war. There's enough publicly available information to build a relatively complete profile of the rulers, but not, so far as I know, enough information to reliably identify any specific persons. Needless to say, efforts to publicly develop and share that profile are rigorously suppressed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    Apparently, you've never read the DMCA or any national defense laws. 100% legal and happens daily.
richbell 3y ago
A library or book store would probably get sued if they prominently featured a book called "avesteele is a horrible criminal" (full of unsubstantiated claims) and refused to remove it despite being asked nicely and eventually ordered to do so by a judge.
dahwolf 3y ago
Let's establish here that this is reputation and possibly life-ending defamation. The man became suicidal after all. If I were to write a book with such a claim about you, completely made up, and you'd report this to the book store. Then yes, I very much expect the book store to remove the book. Nobody needs to sue anybody, this only happened as Google could not make up its mind. Which means that even if you believe they have no responsibility, they're still in the wrong. You can't remove it 5 times and keep letting it resurface. Take a stance and stick with it.
irjustin 3y ago
> You probably don't believe a library or book store should be sued if they sell a book with defamatory content I do, but the deeper question is why don't you? If there were lies written about you, verifiable, provable lies, then you don't feel like you have the right to ask the library to remove that book?
- avsteele 3y ago
  'Ask'ing isn't at issue here. The question is whether the library should bear any liability if it declines to act as a fact checker for every book on its shelves. In the case where you got your preference you'd mostly see controversial books disappear from the shelves. The business they bring wouldn't be worth a lawsuit.
  - irjustin 3y ago
    > The question is whether the library should bear any liability if it declines to act as a fact checker for every book on its shelves. How is that the question here? There's verifiable fact combined with a court order. You're talking about a different situation. [edit] oh sorry my oriignal post said "ask"... i should've said "legally force" then.
passwordoops 3y ago
In theory. But Google (and all other "platforms" like FB and Twitter) crossed the Rubicon of curation when they went along with suppression and curation at the behest of agencies around the world. This "but they're mostly an indexer" argument has not been valid for a very long time. If you want them to be an indexer (and I believe they should) call your local elected representative and have them push legislation defining the "platforms" a public utility following whatever principles of free speech are relevant in your jurisdiction. And stop pretending Google doesn't already suppress information
Ekaros 3y ago
Actually why not? Would it put unreasonable burden on them to not distribute libel? I might let newstands to slide it as reviewing each newspaper every day might be too high ask. But they certainly already curate the books they sell or lend. So why not expect them to also be aware of contents.
908B64B197 3y ago
The first amendment explicitly protects the book store. It's a pretty clear cut case. I still don't get why the plaintiff didn't simply go after the publisher or host of the offending website to get the content removed. That's the party who's liable for defamation.

bhargav 3y ago

Libraries and bookstores curate all the time. Controversial books are not sold or removed.

rootusrootus 3y ago

Google exercises a great deal of editorial discretion on the content they present to the user. The days of 'mostly an indexer' stopped years ago.

542458 3y ago

If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it, complied, then restored it, was asked to remove it again, complied, restored it again, then finally started refusing to remove it, I’d say suing them is reasonable (which is what happened here as far as I can tell - the exact sequence of events is a bit hard to reconstruct).

perihelions 3y ago
- "If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it," Thankfully 100% unconstitutional in the US.
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional in the US. Different countries have different laws. If you can't abide by the laws of other countries, don't operate there.
  - notch898c 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - AdrianB1 3y ago
      The first sentence is true, the last one is trolling.
- voxic11 3y ago
  No in the US libraries and bookstores are considered "distributors" so they have no obligation to actively review all of their content like "publishers" have, but when given notice they are still obligated to remove any content which violates the law, including defamatory content.
- kgwgk 3y ago
  What part is “unconstitutional”? Informing? Asking? Removing?
- whitemary 3y ago
  You aren't going to like this, but it turns out the US doesn't reliably enforce anything in its constitution, and even contradicts it on a constant basis. Effectively, the US is governed by an aggregate of very wealthy corporations who get what they want by bartering with politicians.
  - User23 3y ago
    You're along the right lines, but it's gnarlier than that. National politicians are more like WWE wrestlers or reality show contestants. They have some freedom of action, but not much, and they must stay within the lines of the script. Tellingly, none of them actually legislate anymore, with the exception of the occasional bit of grandstanding that isn't intended to ever get past being a bill. All the bills that do become laws are written by private lawyers working for known or unknown principals, who then hand them off to lobbyists, who then arrange for a politician to sign off on it. We receive some clues as to who the real shot callers are, because certain agenda items reliably receive bipartisan support. So for example we can conclude that whoever really runs the USA is fully in favor of involvement in the Ukraine war. There's enough publicly available information to build a relatively complete profile of the rulers, but not, so far as I know, enough information to reliably identify any specific persons. Needless to say, efforts to publicly develop and share that profile are rigorously suppressed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Apparently, you've never read the DMCA or any national defense laws. 100% legal and happens daily.

richbell 3y ago

A library or book store would probably get sued if they prominently featured a book called "avesteele is a horrible criminal" (full of unsubstantiated claims) and refused to remove it despite being asked nicely and eventually ordered to do so by a judge.

dahwolf 3y ago

Let's establish here that this is reputation and possibly life-ending defamation. The man became suicidal after all. If I were to write a book with such a claim about you, completely made up, and you'd report this to the book store. Then yes, I very much expect the book store to remove the book. Nobody needs to sue anybody, this only happened as Google could not make up its mind. Which means that even if you believe they have no responsibility, they're still in the wrong. You can't remove it 5 times and keep letting it resurface. Take a stance and stick with it.

irjustin 3y ago

> You probably don't believe a library or book store should be sued if they sell a book with defamatory content I do, but the deeper question is why don't you? If there were lies written about you, verifiable, provable lies, then you don't feel like you have the right to ask the library to remove that book?

avsteele 3y ago
'Ask'ing isn't at issue here. The question is whether the library should bear any liability if it declines to act as a fact checker for every book on its shelves. In the case where you got your preference you'd mostly see controversial books disappear from the shelves. The business they bring wouldn't be worth a lawsuit.
- irjustin 3y ago
  > The question is whether the library should bear any liability if it declines to act as a fact checker for every book on its shelves. How is that the question here? There's verifiable fact combined with a court order. You're talking about a different situation. [edit] oh sorry my oriignal post said "ask"... i should've said "legally force" then.

passwordoops 3y ago

In theory. But Google (and all other "platforms" like FB and Twitter) crossed the Rubicon of curation when they went along with suppression and curation at the behest of agencies around the world. This "but they're mostly an indexer" argument has not been valid for a very long time. If you want them to be an indexer (and I believe they should) call your local elected representative and have them push legislation defining the "platforms" a public utility following whatever principles of free speech are relevant in your jurisdiction. And stop pretending Google doesn't already suppress information

Ekaros 3y ago

Actually why not? Would it put unreasonable burden on them to not distribute libel? I might let newstands to slide it as reviewing each newspaper every day might be too high ask. But they certainly already curate the books they sell or lend. So why not expect them to also be aware of contents.

908B64B197 3y ago

The first amendment explicitly protects the book store. It's a pretty clear cut case. I still don't get why the plaintiff didn't simply go after the publisher or host of the offending website to get the content removed. That's the party who's liable for defamation.