4 ms·

> it is important to consider the potential harm caused by certain links, such as revenge pornography, which can be extremely damaging to individuals. Informat

> it is important to consider the potential harm caused by certain links, such as revenge pornography, which can be extremely damaging to individuals. Information does not cause damage, people do. Surely the onus must be on the people who use the information to cause damage? For example, those in the article who chose to not do business with the Montrealer because of the invalid information they leveraged. They caused the damage claimed in court. Why is Google responsible for their poor judgement? > are you also opposed to DMCA takedowns? If you stand by takedowns, why prefer removal of a link over the source material? Surely once the actual content goes away so too will the link? If the content is still out there, it will still be found, if not by Google, by some other means.

mdrzn 3y ago
It's important to recognize the role that platforms like Google can play in facilitating that harm. What if the website containing harmful content is hosted on a Russian server that ignores DMCA takedowns and there is no way to remove it? What if the majority of traffic to that website comes from Google, should Google not take any responsibility for promoting that content? Or should Google take proactive measures to prevent harm, even if they are not the source of the content?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Or should Google take proactive measures to prevent harm Meaning, should Google babysit people with occasional poor judgement? After all, if people always acted rationally with a clear head information would be completely innocuous. But, indeed, there will always be some crazies out there. In a similar vein, does a hammer manufacturer have the responsibility to babysit the occasional person who will use a hammer to bludgeon another to death? I say no. The is no intent by the manufacturer to see bludgeoning carried out. If the user of a tool uses poor judgement, that's on them. We don't go after the Ford Motor Company every time someone gets a speeding ticket while driving a Ford, so what is special about Google?
  - danaris 3y ago
    > Meaning, should Google babysit people with occasional poor judgement? How does person X defaming person Y indicate that person Y has poor judgement? Do you think that no one ever posts lies on the internet?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. We are talking about the party who caused the harm. The harm isn't caused when a lie is posted on the internet. The harm isn't caused when the lie is repeated on the internet. The lie itself can cause no harm. It is just information, and information cannot harm. Irrational people can, and do, reach for a lie and, out of poor judgement, create harm. But the poor judgement is the problem, not the lie, hammer, or car. The latter three do not act. If people were infallible the existence of the lie would mean nothing as it could not possibly lead to harm. Of course, people are not infallible and harm will be created. The onus being placed on the party causing harm, not those who made commonly used tools available to the party at fault is recognized everywhere else. What is special about Google?
      - danaris 3y ago
        > information cannot harm. This is so patently false I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion. There are so many very obvious ways that information, especially false information, can cause demonstrable, material harm that I cannot view this argument as anything other than ideological dogma with no basis in reality.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > There are so many very obvious ways that information, especially false information, can cause demonstrable, material harm Like what? Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that this website containing inflammatory information was never found by another person. What harm would the information cause? The answer is that it wouldn't cause any harm. How could it? Not even the court case tried to make this claim. It claimed the harm was caused by the poor judgment of people in the man's life.
dahwolf 3y ago
"If you stand by takedowns, why prefer removal of a link over the source material?" Because it's often impossible. Different jurisdiction or hosting services not complying with the request.
- randomdata 3y ago
  The article indicates that the law was only concerned with removal of links in Canada anyway, so if total removal is impossible as you say, it can still be firewalled at the border. China has no problem removing undesirable content from outside of their jurisdiction. What's Canada's problem?

mdrzn 3y ago

It's important to recognize the role that platforms like Google can play in facilitating that harm. What if the website containing harmful content is hosted on a Russian server that ignores DMCA takedowns and there is no way to remove it? What if the majority of traffic to that website comes from Google, should Google not take any responsibility for promoting that content? Or should Google take proactive measures to prevent harm, even if they are not the source of the content?

randomdata 3y ago
> Or should Google take proactive measures to prevent harm Meaning, should Google babysit people with occasional poor judgement? After all, if people always acted rationally with a clear head information would be completely innocuous. But, indeed, there will always be some crazies out there. In a similar vein, does a hammer manufacturer have the responsibility to babysit the occasional person who will use a hammer to bludgeon another to death? I say no. The is no intent by the manufacturer to see bludgeoning carried out. If the user of a tool uses poor judgement, that's on them. We don't go after the Ford Motor Company every time someone gets a speeding ticket while driving a Ford, so what is special about Google?
- danaris 3y ago
  > Meaning, should Google babysit people with occasional poor judgement? How does person X defaming person Y indicate that person Y has poor judgement? Do you think that no one ever posts lies on the internet?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. We are talking about the party who caused the harm. The harm isn't caused when a lie is posted on the internet. The harm isn't caused when the lie is repeated on the internet. The lie itself can cause no harm. It is just information, and information cannot harm. Irrational people can, and do, reach for a lie and, out of poor judgement, create harm. But the poor judgement is the problem, not the lie, hammer, or car. The latter three do not act. If people were infallible the existence of the lie would mean nothing as it could not possibly lead to harm. Of course, people are not infallible and harm will be created. The onus being placed on the party causing harm, not those who made commonly used tools available to the party at fault is recognized everywhere else. What is special about Google?
    - danaris 3y ago
      > information cannot harm. This is so patently false I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion. There are so many very obvious ways that information, especially false information, can cause demonstrable, material harm that I cannot view this argument as anything other than ideological dogma with no basis in reality.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > There are so many very obvious ways that information, especially false information, can cause demonstrable, material harm Like what? Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that this website containing inflammatory information was never found by another person. What harm would the information cause? The answer is that it wouldn't cause any harm. How could it? Not even the court case tried to make this claim. It claimed the harm was caused by the poor judgment of people in the man's life.

dahwolf 3y ago

"If you stand by takedowns, why prefer removal of a link over the source material?" Because it's often impossible. Different jurisdiction or hosting services not complying with the request.

randomdata 3y ago
The article indicates that the law was only concerned with removal of links in Canada anyway, so if total removal is impossible as you say, it can still be firewalled at the border. China has no problem removing undesirable content from outside of their jurisdiction. What's Canada's problem?