5 ms·

>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known t

>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v-google-inc/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v...) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizarre to me, since it seems to imply that some human has to read every web page linked by Google. Even to suggest that Google must respond to every complaint of content on third party websites just cannot possibly scale. On the other, there is a party that is responsible for the defamatory content, namely whatever web app had collected and posted the comments. The claimant should have pursued them, not Google.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Google has a takedown process and it failed. At that point, Safe Harbor no longer applies and we're in this category of "What standard would a newspaper be held accountable to?"
numbsafari 3y ago
Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  That would also imply that there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day. Since burdensome, long-lasting, legally required procedures can also be imposed by a court on an individual. Seems like a slippery slope to be honest.
  - omnimus 3y ago
    No? Because corporations/companies are not individuals? (no matter how they sometimes try to be)
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist. If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated. Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.
      - numbsafari 3y ago
        I think your calculation is wrong. There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others. You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free time? Find a better way.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Have you gotten confused about the topic? The court can already do this if the ruling holds which is why we are discussing it in the first place. Your phrasing it as if it's up to individual members of society to decide to impose on each other. If you think this is relevant, can you describe how?
      - jeroenhd 3y ago
- mszcz 3y ago
  > Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That. I'm so tired of this excuse being used which basically amounts to complaining that you wouldn't been able to get so big and fat if you didn't break the rules.
  - tap-snap-or-nap 3y ago
    Move fast, break things is basically don't get caught when you break social contracts and regulations.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  This is a fun quip, but are you literally suggesting that someone should have to read every webpage indexed by a search engine? That is what the comment you are responding to suggests doesn't scale. If so, that seems, way off the deep end to me, and you know, slightly different from your local coal plant killing everyone through pollution. If not, what precisely is your okay (If non-scalable) solution to the problem presented here?
  - arp242 3y ago
    If I put something defamatory on my website I can get sued. Why should it be different for Google? "We cannot have someone response to every complaint!" – okay, I understand. Then maybe don't do whatever you're doing at all then if you can't handle the responsibility?
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      It isn't different. Let's not change the subject - this isn't about responding to complaints - the suggestion here was basically that someone should have to review every single web page that gets indexed. Either that's what we want or it isn't. Let's not change the subject because this is a line that might have to be drawn.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    If you can't build your product within the bounds of laws and morals, your product sucks or you don't have what it takes to build such a product.
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      This is again, a great quip, but let's go back to the literal concrete question i asked, to see what line is getting drawn here. Should Google, or whoever, have to literally review every single page they index? If yes, how do you expect that to work. If no, what is actually being suggested beyond the quips?
      - 3y ago
- Symmetry 3y ago
  That's true in principle, but in this case I think that the existence of search engines is a net social good and I think it would be a big loss for all of us if they disappeared. Not that the days of web rings and hand-curated website lists didn't have their own charm but I think that the net effect would be a huge increase in the power of walled gardens.
Zambyte 3y ago
> Even to suggest that Google must respond to every complaint of content on third party websites just cannot possibly scale. Must everything scale?
- almostnormal 3y ago
  The amount of human workers to process the requests definitively must scale with the requests. What may be desirable is cases where cost does not scale with revenue. But that should be no guarantee for long-term gains, because it provides room for competition that could make a cheaper offer at the same internal cost.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    Gonna be real with you, I have no idea what you mean. My point in asking was that scaling Google to infinity might in fact not be a good thing.
    - almostnormal 3y ago
      I agree with you. Just the use of "scaling" seemed a bit too narrow. Produce x pieces and earn y. Produce 1000 times x pieces and earn 1000 times y. That's scaling in the traditional sense. "Everything" (+/-) scales. Produce once at fixed cost and earn infinite - that's something beyond just scaling. Maybe leverage? If it would provide the same quality and lower prices it would be good for society. If prices stay high and there is an indirect cost in degraded quality for the sake of huge gains something might not be right.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SturgeonsLaw 3y ago
> because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information This is the second case she launched against Google. The first one determined that Google was publishing defamatory information, they settled, but continued to publish the information. So this is probably a situation where they should have had a human looking over it. "Looking at every page" doesn't scale, but "looking at every page we lost a court case over" should be doable, you would think.
- viraptor 3y ago
  Even looking at every page they get a legal complaint about shouldn't be impossible for Google.
tyingq 3y ago
What about this bit, though? Feels like they made their own bed to me. "Google continued to publish the defamatory content in Australia for two years after it was found to be defamatory. In 2022, again self-represented, I endured another trial. Further details are on this page." https://drjaniceduffy.com/ https://drjaniceduffy.com/
SnorkelTan 3y ago
The view cached page link on google is a copy of a website stored on googles servers. IANAL but using automated software to blindly ingest everything under the sun and then redistribute it does not seem like an argument any court would accept for why they shouldn't be liable for what they're publishing. Also it seems like the issue in the article is that she specifically went through their take-down process and they still didn't remove it.
glimshe 3y ago
Irrespective of this specific ruling, the laws don't need to make Google's business scale or even be viable. Google should only exist if its business can comply with the rules we created for our society.
- postingawayonhn 3y ago
  But if Google adds a lot of value to our society should we not consider amending our laws to make the business viable?
  - glimshe 3y ago
    How would that work? Business becomes big by breaking the laws then we change the laws so business stays big?
    - arp242 3y ago
      That's quite literally Uber's business model for large parts of the world. It's rather sad that these kind of "businesses" aren't just banned and prosecuted as criminal conspiracies. I really think that's the appropriate classification for an organisation that goes in to a country, sets up a business it knows is illegal, stokes up violence, and reaps in profit (well, "profit", because it still doesn't actually make a profit).
      - unmole 3y ago
        > stokes up violence What now?
        arp242 3y ago
        From https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak... Amid taxi strikes and riots in Paris, Kalanick ordered French executives to retaliate by encouraging Uber drivers to stage a counter-protest with mass civil disobedience. Warned that doing so risked putting Uber drivers at risk of attacks from “extreme right thugs” who had infiltrated the taxi protests and were “spoiling for a fight”, Kalanick appeared to urge his team to press ahead regardless. “I think it’s worth it,” he said. “Violence guarantee[s] success. And these guys must be resisted, no? Agreed that right place and time must be thought out.” The decision to send Uber drivers into potentially volatile protests, despite the risks, was consistent with what one senior former executive told the Guardian was a strategy of “weaponising” drivers, and exploiting violence against them to “keep the controversy burning”. It was a playbook that, leaked emails suggest, was repeated in Italy, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
Lutger 3y ago
Well, the summary states: > and, because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information. So in very least this is not just about linking to something, but about not removing defamatory content when being put on notice. The obligation to respond to requests and remove certain content from a search engine sounds a lot less unreasonable than merely being guilty of linking to something.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Google has a takedown process and it failed. At that point, Safe Harbor no longer applies and we're in this category of "What standard would a newspaper be held accountable to?"

numbsafari 3y ago

Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
That would also imply that there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day. Since burdensome, long-lasting, legally required procedures can also be imposed by a court on an individual. Seems like a slippery slope to be honest.
- omnimus 3y ago
  No? Because corporations/companies are not individuals? (no matter how they sometimes try to be)
- bluGill 3y ago
  There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist. If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated. Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.
    - numbsafari 3y ago
      I think your calculation is wrong. There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others. You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free time? Find a better way.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Have you gotten confused about the topic? The court can already do this if the ruling holds which is why we are discussing it in the first place. Your phrasing it as if it's up to individual members of society to decide to impose on each other. If you think this is relevant, can you describe how?
    - jeroenhd 3y ago
mszcz 3y ago
> Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That. I'm so tired of this excuse being used which basically amounts to complaining that you wouldn't been able to get so big and fat if you didn't break the rules.
- tap-snap-or-nap 3y ago
  Move fast, break things is basically don't get caught when you break social contracts and regulations.
DannyBee 3y ago
This is a fun quip, but are you literally suggesting that someone should have to read every webpage indexed by a search engine? That is what the comment you are responding to suggests doesn't scale. If so, that seems, way off the deep end to me, and you know, slightly different from your local coal plant killing everyone through pollution. If not, what precisely is your okay (If non-scalable) solution to the problem presented here?
- arp242 3y ago
  If I put something defamatory on my website I can get sued. Why should it be different for Google? "We cannot have someone response to every complaint!" – okay, I understand. Then maybe don't do whatever you're doing at all then if you can't handle the responsibility?
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    It isn't different. Let's not change the subject - this isn't about responding to complaints - the suggestion here was basically that someone should have to review every single web page that gets indexed. Either that's what we want or it isn't. Let's not change the subject because this is a line that might have to be drawn.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  If you can't build your product within the bounds of laws and morals, your product sucks or you don't have what it takes to build such a product.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    This is again, a great quip, but let's go back to the literal concrete question i asked, to see what line is getting drawn here. Should Google, or whoever, have to literally review every single page they index? If yes, how do you expect that to work. If no, what is actually being suggested beyond the quips?
    - 3y ago
Symmetry 3y ago
That's true in principle, but in this case I think that the existence of search engines is a net social good and I think it would be a big loss for all of us if they disappeared. Not that the days of web rings and hand-curated website lists didn't have their own charm but I think that the net effect would be a huge increase in the power of walled gardens.

Zambyte 3y ago

> Even to suggest that Google must respond to every complaint of content on third party websites just cannot possibly scale. Must everything scale?

almostnormal 3y ago
The amount of human workers to process the requests definitively must scale with the requests. What may be desirable is cases where cost does not scale with revenue. But that should be no guarantee for long-term gains, because it provides room for competition that could make a cheaper offer at the same internal cost.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Gonna be real with you, I have no idea what you mean. My point in asking was that scaling Google to infinity might in fact not be a good thing.
  - almostnormal 3y ago
    I agree with you. Just the use of "scaling" seemed a bit too narrow. Produce x pieces and earn y. Produce 1000 times x pieces and earn 1000 times y. That's scaling in the traditional sense. "Everything" (+/-) scales. Produce once at fixed cost and earn infinite - that's something beyond just scaling. Maybe leverage? If it would provide the same quality and lower prices it would be good for society. If prices stay high and there is an indirect cost in degraded quality for the sake of huge gains something might not be right.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SturgeonsLaw 3y ago

> because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information This is the second case she launched against Google. The first one determined that Google was publishing defamatory information, they settled, but continued to publish the information. So this is probably a situation where they should have had a human looking over it. "Looking at every page" doesn't scale, but "looking at every page we lost a court case over" should be doable, you would think.

viraptor 3y ago
Even looking at every page they get a legal complaint about shouldn't be impossible for Google.

tyingq 3y ago

What about this bit, though? Feels like they made their own bed to me. "Google continued to publish the defamatory content in Australia for two years after it was found to be defamatory. In 2022, again self-represented, I endured another trial. Further details are on this page." https://drjaniceduffy.com/ https://drjaniceduffy.com/

SnorkelTan 3y ago

The view cached page link on google is a copy of a website stored on googles servers. IANAL but using automated software to blindly ingest everything under the sun and then redistribute it does not seem like an argument any court would accept for why they shouldn't be liable for what they're publishing. Also it seems like the issue in the article is that she specifically went through their take-down process and they still didn't remove it.

glimshe 3y ago

Irrespective of this specific ruling, the laws don't need to make Google's business scale or even be viable. Google should only exist if its business can comply with the rules we created for our society.

postingawayonhn 3y ago
But if Google adds a lot of value to our society should we not consider amending our laws to make the business viable?
- glimshe 3y ago
  How would that work? Business becomes big by breaking the laws then we change the laws so business stays big?
  - arp242 3y ago
    That's quite literally Uber's business model for large parts of the world. It's rather sad that these kind of "businesses" aren't just banned and prosecuted as criminal conspiracies. I really think that's the appropriate classification for an organisation that goes in to a country, sets up a business it knows is illegal, stokes up violence, and reaps in profit (well, "profit", because it still doesn't actually make a profit).
    - unmole 3y ago
      > stokes up violence What now?
      - arp242 3y ago
        From https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak... Amid taxi strikes and riots in Paris, Kalanick ordered French executives to retaliate by encouraging Uber drivers to stage a counter-protest with mass civil disobedience. Warned that doing so risked putting Uber drivers at risk of attacks from “extreme right thugs” who had infiltrated the taxi protests and were “spoiling for a fight”, Kalanick appeared to urge his team to press ahead regardless. “I think it’s worth it,” he said. “Violence guarantee[s] success. And these guys must be resisted, no? Agreed that right place and time must be thought out.” The decision to send Uber drivers into potentially volatile protests, despite the risks, was consistent with what one senior former executive told the Guardian was a strategy of “weaponising” drivers, and exploiting violence against them to “keep the controversy burning”. It was a playbook that, leaked emails suggest, was repeated in Italy, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Lutger 3y ago

Well, the summary states: > and, because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information. So in very least this is not just about linking to something, but about not removing defamatory content when being put on notice. The obligation to respond to requests and remove certain content from a search engine sounds a lot less unreasonable than merely being guilty of linking to something.