More Lawsuits Against Google... To Protect The Children
from the just-think-of-the-children dept
Can we come up with a name for anyone who declares that something needs to be done "for the children?" We're hearing that phrase way too often. The latest is that a county politician in New York has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging the company has sold advertisements to sites that promote child porn. This is a silly, self-promotional lawsuit, probably filed more for political reasons than anything else. Google's advertising platform is a self-serve platform -- meaning anyone can buy an ad without human intervention. Google does eventually review the ads, but most ads will go up quite quickly automatically. The law here is extremely clear: a service provider is not directly responsible for what people do on their platform. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act talks about this very issue, saying that the service provider should not be treated as the publisher of offensive material -- which pretty much puts Google in the clear. Furthermore, Google does do its best to remove any such links or ads and report them to the authorities. To suggest that the company "promotes and profits from child pornography" is ridiculous and shows a misunderstanding both of the law and how Google works.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Heh
"Do No Evil" went out the window when they went public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Heh
You're an �idiot� as well as an �anonymous� coward and obviously need a �clue� in the use of an analogy! Of course ExxonMobil (by the way, just one word and one company not 2 words or 2 companies and there is no e) has a responsibility to not spill oil into the ocean, they unlike Google control the product from extraction to the pump. In the same manner Google has the responsibility not to spill their search engine into your living room! Which, correct me if I am wrong, but they aren�t doing that, right?
Now using an interpretation of your analogy:
If you (anonymous coward) were to go to your local truck stop (your computer) hijack a truck (use Google) which happened to be an oil tanker (internet content, including porn) and then crashed that truck into your trailer (your search for kiddy porn) and spill the oil all over you double wide (finding child pornography that some one has hosted/posted). Whose fault is that?
1. Is it the fault of the truck stop (your computer maker / OS supplier)?
2. Is it the fault of the truck manufacturer or truck owner (Google)?
3. Is it the fault of the tanker manufacturer (the internet)?
4. Is it the fault of the earth for allowing oil to be created (the internet)?
5. Is it the fault of the idiot behind the wheel who stole the truck (your act of searching)?
6. Is it the fault of the idiot who bought the double-wide (the host and/or poster)?
If you guessed any combination other than 5 and 6, you probably should look at your self and stop trying to find a scapegoat for all you problems and all the ills of the world.
I can hear you now, �the Google made me do it�. Next thing you know you�ll be back to pointing at your neighbors and calling them "evil" and "Google user" and either drowning them or burning them at the stake because of their wickedness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Heh
You're an �idiot� as well as an �anonymous� coward and obviously need a �clue� in the use of an analogy! Of course ExxonMobil (by the way, just one word and one company not 2 words or 2 companies and there is no e) has a responsibility to not spill oil into the ocean, they unlike Google control the product from extraction to the pump. In the same manner Google has the responsibility not to spill their search engine into your living room! Which, correct me if I am wrong, but they aren�t doing that, right?
Now using an interpretation of your analogy:
If you (anonymous coward) were to go to your local truck stop (your computer) hijack a truck (use Google) which happened to be an oil tanker (internet content, including porn) and then crashed that truck into your trailer (your search for kiddy porn) and spill the oil all over you double wide (finding child pornography that some one has hosted/posted). Whose fault is that?
1. Is it the fault of the truck stop (your computer maker / OS supplier)?
2. Is it the fault of the truck manufacturer or truck owner (Google)?
3. Is it the fault of the tanker manufacturer (the internet)?
4. Is it the fault of the earth for allowing oil to be created (the internet)?
5. Is it the fault of the idiot behind the wheel who stole the truck (your act of searching)?
6. Is it the fault of the idiot who bought the double-wide (the host and/or poster)?
If you guessed any combination other than 5 and 6, you probably should look at your self and stop trying to find a scapegoat for all you problems and all the ills of the world.
I can hear you now, �the Google made me do it�. Next thing you know you�ll be back to pointing at your neighbors and calling them "evil" and "Google user" and either drowning them or burning them at the stake because of their wickedness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Social Responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extent of cda 230
But more importantly, I don't think the law is as clear as you claim. 230 provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Personally, the phrase "interactive computer service" is a rarity, but it's probably better understood as definitely refering to ISPs (ie. those actually providing internet service, like an AOL) if you look at Congress' intent. My blog is an interactive computer service under the definition, but if I made another's kiddie porn available on it, I doubt a court would grant me an exception.
More power to Google if they could win that point though, because whatever Google can do with content on its sites I can do on mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
This goes back to many others articles, social woes and our laws. People want to blame everyone else for there own stupidity. It's my fault I didn't vote in some elections, and again my fault for voting for the wrong asshole in others. There, I've assumed blame for everything wrong in the world today. Sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hilarious
And by the way the planning-a-robbery-over-the-phone comment... priceless.
And... WE DON'T NEED STRINGENT LAWS... I don't see me ending up like China (no offense, but I just don't)... we need smarter laws... and probably a bit of good parenting could also do the trick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, when you look into it
But, if Google is selling advertising to child porn sites, this is another whole ball of wax.
I find that Google isn't selective in how they get their monies. If your a child porn website, Google will take your money and promote your website just like any other website. Google just wants money, they do not care about ensuring quality and acceptable content is promoted on the web.
Google allows phishing websites, websites filled with trojans and other viruses, and obviously now, child porn websites to proliferate on the web. These sites just pay Google X amount of dollars, and Google ranks their pages #1 and puts them first as sponsored links.
I DO NOT BELIEVE for one second that Google monitors these websites or removes illegal or inappropriate websites from their ad program. Face it, they don't care, its just more money for them. They might have guidelines and such, but this does not explain how these websites tend to always get ranked #1 and appear as sponsored links, even with searching for something completely unrelated.
Look, there are stringent laws and rules about advertising in newspapers, radio, and television. They can't have swear words in them, can't sell cigarettes or drugs (like in Canada, drug advertising is illegal), etc. A television, newspaper or radio station violating these rules may be fined, or even have their broadcast license revoked.
There needs to be these kinds of rules on the web. While you can't enforce the WORLD WIDE WEB with general rules, you can ensure companies like Google, who proliferate web advertising, can take more care to advertise for quality and appropriate websites.
Before speaking trash about this article, realize that Google does need to be taken down a notch or two. If they are not selective about who they advertise for, then they desever to be named in these kinds of lawsuits. Google can't just take peoples money and ignore the content they are trying to advertise, Google needs to take respect to become a RESPONSIBLE advertiser.
Google has this motto "Do No Evil", it doesn't say anything against spreading it around or being the axis of evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
Why don't we go after the child pornography instead. If Google's really making it that much easier to find, use Google to find it, then remove the offending site. Don't blame the search engine for all the content on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, when you look into it
The customer is always right (@ least for large multibillion dollar companies like google) and alienating them will be their undoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, when you look into it
let me point this out. A smart decadent guy like Larry Page (Ceo of Google) does know what goes on. He knows exactly wht his search engine is. Just as Napolean knew the name of every soildier in his army. Do not be so naive. Yes the search engine seems to have a life of its own. But that does not mean they do not know its content. They do. A mind is enormous and can hold untold amounts of information. i am that way myself. So I know. I love to lknow as much as I can. There is always room to know more. A mind has no boundaries.
I dared to critisize their double standard of values in adwords advertising. They promtply booted me out. So you see they do monitor. They also took away my substantial earnings for that time. So they are thieves also. How can they do this? By monitoring.
I am going to enlightine you. There a enormous data bases all over the world that collect personal information on US. Yes you and I. Big brother is trying to watch us. Do not ever give out your real name or brithdate unless you need a credit card or such.
Soon these big secret data banks will be destroyed by earthquales. Then we will ahve our privacy back. God does work in mysterious ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
Size matters these days, it seems to attract mostly anger and envy.
Google seems way more responsible that Msoft, Yahoo and others who turned over access to private information to the Feds without even telling its users. Google at least brought it out in the open and fought it.
Are all automated, large scale systems to be outlawed or are they to we weighed against the good that they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
well you sir, are very ignorant.
I've been advertising on google since the day adwords launched. both normal sites and adult sites. I know from experience how strict they are and that everything gets reviewed by a human. It just takes a few days sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
I aM knowledge. Do not worry about gOogle. Use them to your advantage. Nobody will bring them dowm for the Judges are partial to Billionaires. But there is a catch 22 for such companies. it is Nature! Earth changes. California is in the path of destruction. Say good bye to the coast line, it is meeting a plate heading towards it frrom the mysteriouis Godly depths of the Pacific Ocean. Mexico and the coast of California will be attached by this plate and taken onto the Pacific ocean. Since tectonic plates have no disc brakes, you can imagine the destruction that will happen. The ancient prophecy that the Atlantic will meet the pacific will become fact.
So, then, any business in California is soon to be history.
Good bye Arniold Schwarzi, by pass heart vales and all. Good bye to Mexicans trying to enter the USA.
Back to my point. Make as much money as you can on adwords. Screw the vindictive asttitude of the employees at Google. They will all die.
We are also in the process of a two year draught coming into play. There will no food in the food stores as there wil grow nothing, absolutely nothing. If you do not have your own safe drinking water and a safe tract of land to grow your own food, raise you livestock, well my friends , i warned you. The cities are going to hell and are slowly disintigrating. By 2043 they will al be ruins. There will be no electricity either during that time. No electicity, no gas, no travel by car, and you arre stuck were it catches you. Earth is healing its body. If mankind tries to fight nature, they will loose. So now back to Google. They will disappear too. ha! So now, do you see why you must make as much mulla as you can to do what yopu have to to survive. But if you do not care or believe me, then go ahead and die. Nobody will remember you.
Love God and follow this wisdom. I am your friend even if you do not like what I say. Life will go on after the earth changes, but only for the radical few of God. Radical mean going against the accepted norm. PREPEARE AND SURVIV FOR THE GOLDEN AGE THAT WILL COME.
mYSTERY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
I guess you're a Canadian.
God bless
You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, when you look into it
We are programmers and as such we try to get high ranking for our clients. Recently one of our clients domain has been dropped by Google for reasons which are totally idiotic and unethical - such as - having a black background on some table with black text. (there is no freaking text - just a picture in the table). As we all know Google is the largest SE and as such is vital for many businesses Internet viability.
At the same time their ethic does not allow to filter child pronography out of their Database Indexes - this is not only hypocracy but in my point of view bordering dangerously on criminality!!!
We programmers have elevated Google to its present position and nobody else, by promoting their purity and simplicity with the Internet community. This seems to be forgotten and Google now turns on us, who invest time, expertise and intellect to boost some poor bastards ranking to make a buck. - result is - you get banned.
They are best advised to review their policy of sensorship and rather invest more money on hacking- and virus protection.
90% of Internet viruses come through Google searches!!
Reason is in reality: make a search on any term on Google and apply the same phrase with MSN and one will find that Google results are many times more than MSN. The difference though is that MSN returns question specific results and Google brings in anything - so people are actually tricked into the believe that Google is better - the opposite is true. The same applies for the Google Search Bar - sometimes it stuffs up a browser and depending on Operating system is only removable if one does a micro-surgery.
This is unacceptable and Google has to keep in mind - that everyone is vulnerable on the Internet and if they cross the wrong people - well who made you - can bring you down!!
Short answer: Google - like Microsoft try to play GOD - in the end often tried - but never succeeded.
cheers to all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does he know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does he know?
There's a difference between "sponsored results" and the regular results. Normal results are based solely on page rank. Sponsored results are based on how much you're willing to spend per click.
I'm not saying Google is responsible for the content of website's advertised through their service (in fact, they even claim the opposite in their terms of service). I'm only saying the system is not as automated as you - and others - have made it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with south parks way of viewing politics you have two choices for who gets in office, neither of them are good as the majority of people who want to run for office have the worst qualities a person can have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: by joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google - failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cut the weeds, they'll just grow back in a few weeks. Pull out the roots, and they'll stay gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TO TOPHER31
2. Learn to spell, use grammatic tenses and verb conjugations correctly.
3. Clearly you need to be taken down a notch or two yourself.
4. That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TO TOPHER31
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TO TOPHER31
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorant Politician
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morning Coffee, Naked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the big deal?
Google is not innocent either. They're in the business of making money. No holds barred. It's an ancient concept in business to break the law and earn as much as you can before you get caught. The payouts and settlements you see in the News are only a fraction of what these companies have earned.
I sold my Google stock not because they no longer have a white vest or are profitable, but because they somehow pissed off some really powerful players that now have Google in thier sights.
As for the idiot politician, I'll pay $5 to anyone who publishes dirt on the jerk. That's about all it's worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totsquat
1.) An attempt to further ones political or moral agenda by invoking the "for the children" argument. Commonly used by oppressive regimes to subvert a culture of freedom and personal responsibility.
2.) The act of squatting by a small diapered child for the purpose of relieving excrement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More
I think maybe Congress should address this issue with first an oversight committee. A group that could supeona the Board of Directors of Google and then each and every shareholder. Once they have questioned everyone of this group then they need to get someone who has nothing better to do with their time to come and answer more questions so the whole process can take at least 2 to 3 years.
And the questions need to be direct and to the point. Examples:
"Mr. Page- When did you start reading kiddie porn?"
"Mr. Rosenberg - Do you think it is fair that Google makes so much money and I don't"
"Dr. Schmidt - Was Penny Robinson as hot in real life as she was on TV?
And once this commitee is done they take the report that is generated (50+ pages) and make 10,000 copies of it and pass it around Washington DC to show everyone what a great job they did. And after 30 days of the report being releases everyone in the US forgets the report and nothing else changes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets all sue the world!
Gas prices are beyond my means to continue driving, I'll sue the Goverment for not regulating prices.
GOD hasn't provided in a manor that I believe in, I'll sue all releigons!!
Google needs to correct a problem that allows the lowest form of scum the ability to advertise. But suing them is not nessescary. I don't know the 2 guys that own google personaly, but I think if they where told of this problem instead of sued, they'd still fix this loophole.
Suing only costs money, not just the companies involved.
Court cost
Production loss
Lawyer Fees
All of this adds up an the effected company that has to pay for this wants to recoup thier losses so they increase the price of thier product. So we all end up paying for that lawsuit.
Instead of suing why not talk to the people that own the company and ask them to fix the problem, if this doesn't work then let the investors know. If that still doesnt work STOP using the product, if nobody buys or use's thier product that will get thier attention.
My 2 cents for common sense
Curtis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corporate responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: corporate responsibility
Spoken like a true Republican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Googling
Either companies like Googles take it upon themselves to shape up or new laws will be inevitable, whether you want to call them stupid or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Children and the Internet
Time to wake up - the internet is not a babysitter like TV - it's a window on the whole wide world, and like the whole wide world some of it is fantastic, some of it sleazy and some of it down right dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We do, its Pedophile. Lover of children.
And mouse... You should listen to your own advice... Stop look for child porn indeed. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evolution
Maybe it should be Revolution! Revolution! Revolution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suggested Name for the "For the Children" Types
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not legally responsible
1. They are a multi-billion dollar company and people don't feel bad giving them grief.
2. They are GOOD - and not everyone likes that.
They have plenty of money without having to accept ads for child porn - but they wouldn't have plenty of money if they had to check every ad. Like the DVD analogy - if you don't like it that your DVD player doesn't censor illegal content - then don't buy a DVD player!!! If you don't like the Google product, stop paying for it! Oh wait, it's free! Perhaps you would like to start paying for it now - so that it has 'better' censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more succesfull something becomes the more it becomes a target. A target for one of the biggest oxymorons there is; political ethics.
"Can we come up with a name for anyone who declares that something needs to be done "for the children?" "[sic]'
How about an Acronym? PPS, (parasitic public servants).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are all responsible
So say the terrorist has a bomb, and jumps in the car and says "take me to the preschool." The driver is still responsible!
If my neighbor has someone breaking into his house and he is out of town, and I see that guy, I am morally responsible to do something to stop it. Same with google.
I say, they are responsible for the sex-terrorist in their "taxi." because they can see the bomb and they are delivering the guy to the preschool. (ie home or computer.)
Ten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically speaking, google is a metadata center. It only references sources. I have to tell that to the people I work for all the time. they keep saying "yahoo has our old company name, you need to change that." Imagine tryign to explain that to these technology ignorant people. now imagine trying to convince a court of that. judges and jurys should be carefully selected so that they know what the hell they're talking about, but thats another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another name...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His name is Jeff Toback
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child Porn - Google
When I reported this to Google, they said that I should just go and block the site and it was selected since that my site has similar content. Bullshit. I run a luxury travel company, nothing about sex or children!!!
It is hard to block site by site and but a bandaid solution. I disagree strongly with the author's contention that Google is not supporting child porn - they couldn't be bothered to delete the pedophile site from their list. My conclusions is that they do whatever makes $$$ - be it child porn or cooperating with repressive regimes with some of the worst human rights records in the world.
An objective conclusion. They are far WORSE than Microsoft. But oh so profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
internet porn
explicit material. And by not monitoring the substance that
goes through the doorway makes them a part of the problem.
It is really too bad that the internet has no boundaries and
it is so easy for children to be exposed to things that they are not ready to handle. Our internet society is destroying innate
innocence of children by easy and frequent exposure. Sexually
explicit material like that we can easily find on the internet is
not allowed in any other form of media--newspapers, television
radio and movies unless you are older, so why should it be on the internet? Believe it or not, the internet is a just another powerful media that everyone can see and they need to act
responsibly. Why shouldn't they do something about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]