As it stands now, people are defenseless against being defamed by search engines that amplify defamatory content
Search engines don't defame, people do. They don't amplify them either, people do by sharing the content. Try not using a search engine to find what you want on the internet. Good luck with that.
...which otherwise would remain in the corners of the internet for a small audience, rather than become part of a dossier used by just about everyone. Moreover, a defamed person will have to sue not the original publisher, or the search engines, but anyone who finds the lies in the search engine and then repeats them, as many will inevitably do.
What? don't talk rubbish, AC. Nobody has to sue anyone over anything, not even defamation. When some lying troll actually tried to get me fired from my job and published multiple defamatory posts about me I couldn't go after the troll but I could refute the lies, which I did. I also was able to persuade some of the platforms on which the lies were hosted to remove them on the grounds that they were troll posts, which could impact on the credibility of those sites as information sources. Result: but one remains on a site that has little credibility as an information source due to their willingness to host troll posts. Honestly, I'm not even bovvered about that. Nobody takes them seriously.
Australia held Google liable for search results in a 2012 case. There is no 230 immunity in Australia for the obvious harm inflicted.
The obvious harm was unfortunately self-inflicted due to a flame war that got out of hand. Had the person involved acted more circumspectly she would never have ended up in that situation. We've discussed this and are now on friendly terms, so anyone who takes a pop at her will be told to knock it off.
Americans ignore cases like this because it shows that search engines and other intermediares inflict harm by spreading defamation in both countries, but are liable only in one.
Search engines spread nothing; people spread all kinds of things by repeating them. Try living without search engines if you think they're so evil. Let us know how you get on.
Section 230 is what politicans can repeal if they want to encourage platforms to remain netural. Section 230 itself does not require neturality, but the law itself can be a bargain that requires it.
Or the law can cause platforms to shut down altogether rather than bear the burden of enforcing your idea of neutrality. This is why we mock you, AC. This is all kinds of stupid and wrong.
How much would you bet that they're by the same person? It wouldn't surprise me at all, given the cognitive dissonance that abounds where freedom of speech and moderation demands collide.
While I agree with you in principle, Uriel, the problem people have (and the reason they freak out about it) is, "You ate Aunt Felicia!"
It's the fact that the bodies of the dead, though technically meat, are Somebody That We Used To Know. Therefore desecration of the dead is tantamount to assault on the living as the living who suffer at the thought of the treatment meted out to their beloved dead. It can leave psychological scars, per testimony on a documentary about medical companies using dead people's body parts (including bones) without the consent of their families. The memory of the distraught son describing his pain at his inability to protect his dead father continues to haunt me.
That said, cannibalism was considered to be perfectly normal until relatively recently. It's a funny old world, innit?
Agreed. And Google isn't responsible for what individuals do, that's the individual's responsibility.
I've been on the receiving end of lies that could have got me fired and rendered me homeless but my own conduct undermined the lies because I don't behave in the way I was portrayed. Ultimately, those lies did me no harm even though they totally could have done.
If people tell lies about you and they're provably lies, nothing they say will actually stick. Why is that hard to understand?
"If someone defames another on 4Chan, and their employer finds it through a Google search, but does not read 4Chan, then GOOGLE is the company who caused the defamation to be located"
No, the poster of the unflattering comments is the entity who caused the unflattering comment to be located by putting it there.
That's a problem. Isn't there a way to censure lawyers who effectively commit fraud by filing lawsuits they've got no chance of winning?
I feel sorry for Bah but if he learns anything from this, I hope it's to report the loss of any official paperwork with his name on going forward. I'm sorry for his troubles but it's the thief who is to blame here, not Apple -- or the cops. They were all just doing their jobs with the information available to them at the time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like evidence of institutionalized ra
From where I sit, it's both. Why? Nobody in the Department appears to have called it out, for a start. Racist? Hell yeah. Think of all the negative connotations attached to that word and you'll understand why officer Klucker put it in the "Occupation" box.
In the case of someone lied about, it is Google's fault for archiving and spreading the lies. In any country without 230, they can be sued for doing that. Look up "distributor liability" for defamation. Google causes 99 percent of the damage from internet defamation by spreading it, which is a separate harm from those who posted it. Many who post internet lies do it because they are weaponizing Google to spread them. This is why Section 230 will eventually fall.
Google is a search engine, dear. The only way to stop any search engine from "archiving and spreading" anything is to get rid of every search engine on the planet. Good luck with finding anything after that.
Sometimes it is not possible to go after the original publisher, and if there are fifty of them, most won't have the resources. The Canadian billionaire who is suing Twitter is showing why 230 is fatally flawed.
It's not always worth the bother of going after the original publisher. I didn't bother going after the troll who posted lies about me and actually tried to get me fired by contacting my employers with the lies. I don't have the resources and since there was no evidence to corroborate the troll's lies, I wasn't even censured; I got promoted shortly afterwards. So if people are telling lies about you and you can demonstrate in some way, as I did, that it's just a bunch of trolls talking smack, it doesn't matter what they say, it won't stick.
What I don't like seeing are otherwise smart people falling into the trap of repeating lies they find on Google, in their own words, and getting sued, though these people bring it on themselves. Surely you've seen people say "This person is a ___; just GOOGLE it" without providing a link. When they do that they are the original publisher and can be sued, and were basically set up by the lies that remained on the internet.
Those self-same lies can be found on other search engines by virtue of the fact that they are search engines. Go on Bing or DuckDuckGo and you'll see I'm right.
Is a bar owner to blame for not wiping defamation off a bathroom wall?
No. First of all he'd have to know which of the comments are defamatory, if they are at all. Secondly, the person responsible for the comment being there is the dirty vandal who wrote it.
I've been lied about. There's an AC troll who keeps posting a link to a particular and well-debunked pack of lies about me as often as he can gain access to his mother's basement, it seems. I don't blame Google for making it available, or even the platform on which the lies are hosted. I blame the troll poster who put it there. It has utterly failed to ruin my life as the troll had hoped because I don't commit the offences I'm accused of, nor have I ever done so.
**Revenge porn is the best example. An employer searches for a female job applicant and finds it. A male landlord does the same. Remember the Marla Hanson case (model's face was slashed by ex-landlord). In both cases neither the employer nor the landlord would ever have found the revenge porn without Google. The same is true for defamation, copyright infringement, etc.
Google would be liable as a distributor of defamation but for Section 230, and they can be held liable in other countries.**
If someone managed to shut Google down forever, other search engines exist. Each and every one of those would carry links to the horrible revenge porn because it has been made available on the internet by the horrible creeps who put it there. Blame the people who do the nasty things, not the dumb pipes that carry the information. Bear in mind that using the internet would be very hard without a search engine.
On the post: It's One Thing For Trolls And Grandstanding Politicians To Get CDA 230 Wrong, But The Press Shouldn't Help Them
Re: Re: Re: ...Section 230...
As it stands now, people are defenseless against being defamed by search engines that amplify defamatory content
Search engines don't defame, people do. They don't amplify them either, people do by sharing the content. Try not using a search engine to find what you want on the internet. Good luck with that.
...which otherwise would remain in the corners of the internet for a small audience, rather than become part of a dossier used by just about everyone. Moreover, a defamed person will have to sue not the original publisher, or the search engines, but anyone who finds the lies in the search engine and then repeats them, as many will inevitably do.
What? don't talk rubbish, AC. Nobody has to sue anyone over anything, not even defamation. When some lying troll actually tried to get me fired from my job and published multiple defamatory posts about me I couldn't go after the troll but I could refute the lies, which I did. I also was able to persuade some of the platforms on which the lies were hosted to remove them on the grounds that they were troll posts, which could impact on the credibility of those sites as information sources. Result: but one remains on a site that has little credibility as an information source due to their willingness to host troll posts. Honestly, I'm not even bovvered about that. Nobody takes them seriously.
Australia held Google liable for search results in a 2012 case. There is no 230 immunity in Australia for the obvious harm inflicted.
The obvious harm was unfortunately self-inflicted due to a flame war that got out of hand. Had the person involved acted more circumspectly she would never have ended up in that situation. We've discussed this and are now on friendly terms, so anyone who takes a pop at her will be told to knock it off.
Americans ignore cases like this because it shows that search engines and other intermediares inflict harm by spreading defamation in both countries, but are liable only in one.
Search engines spread nothing; people spread all kinds of things by repeating them. Try living without search engines if you think they're so evil. Let us know how you get on.
Section 230 is what politicans can repeal if they want to encourage platforms to remain netural. Section 230 itself does not require neturality, but the law itself can be a bargain that requires it.
Or the law can cause platforms to shut down altogether rather than bear the burden of enforcing your idea of neutrality. This is why we mock you, AC. This is all kinds of stupid and wrong.
On the post: It's One Thing For Trolls And Grandstanding Politicians To Get CDA 230 Wrong, But The Press Shouldn't Help Them
Re: Re:
How much would you bet that they're by the same person? It wouldn't surprise me at all, given the cognitive dissonance that abounds where freedom of speech and moderation demands collide.
On the post: FBI And Half The World Bust Operators Of A Site That Made The Dark Web Searchable
Re: Cannibalism
While I agree with you in principle, Uriel, the problem people have (and the reason they freak out about it) is, "You ate Aunt Felicia!"
It's the fact that the bodies of the dead, though technically meat, are Somebody That We Used To Know. Therefore desecration of the dead is tantamount to assault on the living as the living who suffer at the thought of the treatment meted out to their beloved dead. It can leave psychological scars, per testimony on a documentary about medical companies using dead people's body parts (including bones) without the consent of their families. The memory of the distraught son describing his pain at his inability to protect his dead father continues to haunt me.
That said, cannibalism was considered to be perfectly normal until relatively recently. It's a funny old world, innit?
On the post: FBI And Half The World Bust Operators Of A Site That Made The Dark Web Searchable
Re: Liability
We're there now in some countries due to search engines acting like, erm, search engines where negative comments about people are concerned.
I'm still waiting to hear back from that troll AC about what we'd replace them with and how we'd find stuff on the internet without them.
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: totally not a massive hypocrite
Ah, right. Thank you.
On the post: The Ninth Circuit Broke The Internet. So We Asked Them To Unbreak It.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. And Google isn't responsible for what individuals do, that's the individual's responsibility.
I've been on the receiving end of lies that could have got me fired and rendered me homeless but my own conduct undermined the lies because I don't behave in the way I was portrayed. Ultimately, those lies did me no harm even though they totally could have done.
If people tell lies about you and they're provably lies, nothing they say will actually stick. Why is that hard to understand?
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: "Identifying left"
Agreed. Since when did giving a damn about other people automatically make us lefties?
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: Re: Re:
"If someone defames another on 4Chan, and their employer finds it through a Google search, but does not read 4Chan, then GOOGLE is the company who caused the defamation to be located"
No, the poster of the unflattering comments is the entity who caused the unflattering comment to be located by putting it there.
So much for personal responsibility!
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: Re: Re: not an "alt-right" phenomenon
What Uriel said.
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: Re: Re: totally not a massive hypocrite
Trolololololoolllll!
Good husband and father? Moral man??!
https://twitter.com/BornObserver/status/978073697042001920
I rest my case.
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: Re:
Mostly because they continue to believe the lies and will continue to defend Trump.
On the post: The Human Cost Of FOSTA
Re: Re: Re:
In the Age of Trump, they are now.
On the post: Student Files $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Apple Over Supposedly Faulty Facial Recognition Tech That Falsely Accused Him Of Theft
Re: I'd be happy with a cool million
He won't get a cent, unfortunately. He has no case against Apple.
On the post: Student Files $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Apple Over Supposedly Faulty Facial Recognition Tech That Falsely Accused Him Of Theft
Re:
That's a problem. Isn't there a way to censure lawyers who effectively commit fraud by filing lawsuits they've got no chance of winning?
I feel sorry for Bah but if he learns anything from this, I hope it's to report the loss of any official paperwork with his name on going forward. I'm sorry for his troubles but it's the thief who is to blame here, not Apple -- or the cops. They were all just doing their jobs with the information available to them at the time.
On the post: Student Files $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Apple Over Supposedly Faulty Facial Recognition Tech That Falsely Accused Him Of Theft
Re: Re: Re:
True, but the problems he's had with law enforcement, etc., are probably going to impact it big time.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Facebook Still Can't Figure Out How To Deal With Naked Breasts
Re:
^This.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 28th - May 4th
Re: With no respect to Terry Bollea...
LOL @ "based on law and order." Trump and his team have respect for neither.
On the post: Chicago PD's Gang Database Is A Horrific Mess Compiled By Horrific Public Servants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like evidence of institutionalized ra
From where I sit, it's both. Why? Nobody in the Department appears to have called it out, for a start. Racist? Hell yeah. Think of all the negative connotations attached to that word and you'll understand why officer Klucker put it in the "Occupation" box.
On the post: Latest ODNI Transparency Report Shows Steep Spike In Unmasking Requests For US Person Caught In NSA Collections
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the case of someone lied about, it is Google's fault for archiving and spreading the lies. In any country without 230, they can be sued for doing that. Look up "distributor liability" for defamation. Google causes 99 percent of the damage from internet defamation by spreading it, which is a separate harm from those who posted it. Many who post internet lies do it because they are weaponizing Google to spread them. This is why Section 230 will eventually fall.
Google is a search engine, dear. The only way to stop any search engine from "archiving and spreading" anything is to get rid of every search engine on the planet. Good luck with finding anything after that.
Sometimes it is not possible to go after the original publisher, and if there are fifty of them, most won't have the resources. The Canadian billionaire who is suing Twitter is showing why 230 is fatally flawed.
It's not always worth the bother of going after the original publisher. I didn't bother going after the troll who posted lies about me and actually tried to get me fired by contacting my employers with the lies. I don't have the resources and since there was no evidence to corroborate the troll's lies, I wasn't even censured; I got promoted shortly afterwards. So if people are telling lies about you and you can demonstrate in some way, as I did, that it's just a bunch of trolls talking smack, it doesn't matter what they say, it won't stick.
What I don't like seeing are otherwise smart people falling into the trap of repeating lies they find on Google, in their own words, and getting sued, though these people bring it on themselves. Surely you've seen people say "This person is a ___; just GOOGLE it" without providing a link. When they do that they are the original publisher and can be sued, and were basically set up by the lies that remained on the internet.
Those self-same lies can be found on other search engines by virtue of the fact that they are search engines. Go on Bing or DuckDuckGo and you'll see I'm right.
Is a bar owner to blame for not wiping defamation off a bathroom wall?
No. First of all he'd have to know which of the comments are defamatory, if they are at all. Secondly, the person responsible for the comment being there is the dirty vandal who wrote it.
On the post: Latest ODNI Transparency Report Shows Steep Spike In Unmasking Requests For US Person Caught In NSA Collections
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been lied about. There's an AC troll who keeps posting a link to a particular and well-debunked pack of lies about me as often as he can gain access to his mother's basement, it seems. I don't blame Google for making it available, or even the platform on which the lies are hosted. I blame the troll poster who put it there. It has utterly failed to ruin my life as the troll had hoped because I don't commit the offences I'm accused of, nor have I ever done so.
**Revenge porn is the best example. An employer searches for a female job applicant and finds it. A male landlord does the same. Remember the Marla Hanson case (model's face was slashed by ex-landlord). In both cases neither the employer nor the landlord would ever have found the revenge porn without Google. The same is true for defamation, copyright infringement, etc.
Google would be liable as a distributor of defamation but for Section 230, and they can be held liable in other countries.**
If someone managed to shut Google down forever, other search engines exist. Each and every one of those would carry links to the horrible revenge porn because it has been made available on the internet by the horrible creeps who put it there. Blame the people who do the nasty things, not the dumb pipes that carry the information. Bear in mind that using the internet would be very hard without a search engine.
Next >>