3 ms·

Going after Google rather than the company actually making the remarks seems… incorrect Doesn’t seem like it should be Googles job to fact check the internet.

• petee 3y ago
  Perhaps if it was someone else's title, but they are constructing their own auto-complete strings, essentially divining it, so their fingers are in fact in the pie. Auto-complete also gives the impression that other people have searched or found it, so it must be valid, despite having little correlation. If an employer starts typing your name and google says you're pedo, you're probably not getting the job
• jeroenhd 3y ago
  Google made the situation a bit harder for themselves with their info boxes (that just repeat the first result, but in an authoritative Google voice) but the "secondary publisher" argument used in the lawsuit makes sense to me. They weren't required to know the truth from the get go, but they had to remove the libel on notice. Perhaps Google disagreed that there was anything wrong with the assertion that this person was a stalker, but that's a rather risky position to take without any criminal convictions to base their claim off, and a stupid one from a business sense. Furthermore, their autocomplete is entirely their product, you can't go after anyone else for that. I imagine this approach wouldn't work in other countries, but if the lawsuit really was baseless in Australia, Google would've won a long time ago, rather than settle now.
• tinus_hn 3y ago
  Seems the court disagrees with you to the tune of $100000. Seems it is the opinion of the court that Google is rebroadcasting and amplifying slander and refuses to stop when notified and when ordered to do so.
  • AdrianB1 3y ago
    So is every ISP serving Australia.
    • slikrick 3y ago
      no, because they have not been notified, they also may not be a second publisher here. but go off king