6 ms·
Search engines are factual; why should someone be allowed to override the facts? I'd be very happy if this were about correcting facts: about forcing the taked
by markhahn 3y ago
Search engines are factual; why should someone be allowed to override the facts?
I'd be very happy if this were about correcting facts: about forcing the takedown of inaccurate content from websites. Google would then update its index to reflect the improved accuracy.
Fix the problem, not hide it.
- pasc1878 3y agoUnfortunately by the time you have found this lies about you will have spread to many sites often outside the courts jurisdiction. How do you get all those sites taken down? Thus you have to make the indexer stop indexing you.
- thfuran 3y agoSo in order to prevent hypothetical misinformation, it is imperative to maintain the right to demand that accurate information not be spread?
- pasc1878 3y agoIt is not hypothetical - there are cases in Europe where the first entry in google for a person is an accusation against them that was proved false
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thfuran 3y agoAnd the solution to that is to remove the factual information about them from search results?
- pasc1878 3y agoWhat else can you do - those sites are not under the courts jurasticion possibly in Russia, China, USA who do not honour requests from other countries either through spite or because their laws differ.
- dotnet00 3y agoNothing hypothetical about it, it's fairly common for even big news publishers like CNN to put out a headline that is so misleading that it's effectively a lie, and then either never follow up with a correction if the story turns out to be false or put out a much less publicized and still misleading "correction" such that the correction is buried in a few lines in the middle somewhere. If big publishers are doing this often on well known topics, it stands to reason that the much larger number of little publishers are also doing it with at least similar frequency for less well known topics.
- 3-cheese-sundae 3y agoYes, hence the existence of slander and libel laws.
- shitlord 3y agoDo you really have to get those sites taken down if they're not indexed by any major search engines? Very few people will be able to find them.
- eropple 3y ago"I would be much happier if we did a thing can only intermittently be accomplished by legal means and can be nullified at will by creating a new instance of a discardable entity, rather than doing a thing addressed to an identifiable and durable entity from which to request it."
- Turing_Machine 3y ago[dead]
- wredue 3y agoHow do you “fix” a search engine creating top results for your accusation of a crime while burying the acquittal? Unless you’re famous, your acquittal will basically never outrank your accusations in a search engine, and the accusations will follow you. Hence the ruling here.
- anigbrowl 3y agoSearch engines are factual Only in the sense that they index what other sites say, which might or might not be factual or honest.
- shitlord 3y agoSearch engines also curate nowadays. Search for something vaguely related to suicide, and the thing you're looking for will not appear among the first few search results.
- fknorangesite 3y ago> Search engines also curate ~~nowadays~~ and always have. It's impossible not to. Even merely putting one specific search result above another because it's "more relevant" is the very act of curation, because you are inherently defining "relevance."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]