4 ms·
I never said that. You are reading into my comments the bias that you want to see. Data for bankrupt individuals, disgraced corporate directors, criminal tria
by ZenPro 12y ago
I never said that. You are reading into my comments the bias that you want to see.
Data for bankrupt individuals, disgraced corporate directors, criminal trials and legislation existed before Google - it existed in open repositories that anyone who had a valid reason could inspect. No license was required other than being a citizen.
Search engines provide no context because alongside credible and relevant information they will also display non-credible, libellous, inaccurate and harmful information.
If you can design a search engine that can filter for veracity then this law will not be required. Until then - it is.
- mike_hearn 12y agoBut the data about Mr Gonazalez was true. So a search engine that filtered for veracity would not have solved his "problem". This isn't about context or truth or people's feelings being hurt by bad things being said about them. This whole episode is just bizarre. There's a statement of fact about him, in a newspaper, and it comes up when you search his name. Apparently he did nothing else of note (except this court case) so what else should be displayed? Nothing? What's the point of a search engine that doesn't give you factually correct and relevant results?
- ZenPro 12y agoA positive result does signify the absence of negative results. You are displaying conformation bias. Put in legal terms; it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be incarcerated. You are fixated on Gonzalez and he is a footnote in the wider issue which you seem incapable of grasping. You wanted to find a search result that returns evidence of immoral or illegal behaviour. That does not exonerate Google from indexing the multitude of libellous, false and damaging materials that it has.