Forum Moderators: goodroi
A Paris court has convicted US search engine giant Google and its chief executive Eric Schmidt of defamation over results from its "suggest" function, a French legal affairs website has revealed.
The new function, which suggests options as you type in a word, brought up the words "rapist" and "satanist" when the plaintiff's name was typed into the search engine, legalis.net reported.
The court concluded that the search engine's linking his name to such words was defamatory.
The statement said that the Google Suggest function simply reflected the most common terms used in the past with words entered, so it was not Google itself that was making the suggestions.
[google.com...]
That has no bearing in this case.
The computer did it" isn't an excuse
Actually, as mentioned, according to the law in France, for Google to make that suggestion/statement, it has to PROVE it is 100% correct. If it can't, it doesn't matter if it's automated or not, it's illegal.
I'm getting pretty tired of the "it's an algo so we aren't responsible" excuse. An algo starts with a human programmer and is continually refined by a human programmer. It is the product of a human programmer and should be held to the same laws as...a human programmer.
Virtually everything on the web is run by code and that code, almost without exception, is capable of doing unintended things.
The idea that people are so stupid that they would interpret what is clearly an automated suggestion feature, similar to what has been incorporated into the OSes they've been using since childhood, as factual information that they should believe without research... is so absurd that I am sincerely baffled by many of the replies in this thread.
The few that are so completely clueless about technology that they take an alternate search suggestion as a statement of fact...
Majority of web users don't know what is url and what is domain name. They don't type on the browser address bar. They use Google as Bookmarks/Favorites folder! By 'search suggestions' Google is abusing their behavior trying to divert them to more competitive search term and more expensive adwords ads respectively. That's it. It's all about $$$. Google is not unbiased search engine. Not anymore.
baffled by those of you who cannot understand that when Google does this people will naturally assume that the suggestions that are listed are relevant to the subject, good or bad
By 'search suggestions' Google is abusing their behavior trying to divert them to more competitive search term and more expensive adwords ads respectively. That's it. It's all about $$$. Google is not unbiased search engine. Not anymore.
And what's wrong with it? It's a logical feature that has value to users. People understand it's not stating a fact. The few that are so completely clueless about technology that they take an alternate search suggestion as a statement of fact are certainly not a good reason to get rid of a valuable feature for everyone else?And what's wrong with it? It's a logical feature that has value to users. People understand it's not stating a fact. The few that are so completely clueless about technology that they take an alternate search suggestion as a statement of fact are certainly not a good reason to get rid of a valuable feature for everyone else?"
The idea that people are so stupid that they would interpret what is clearly an automated suggestion feature, similar to what has been incorporated into the OSes they've been using since childhood
is so absurd that I am sincerely baffled by many of the replies in this thread.
[edited by: cien at 9:35 pm (utc) on Oct 1, 2010]
I understand just fine that people will assume that, what I don't understand is how you hold Google legally responsible for people's incorrect assumptions.
I don't know in France but in the US, Google is the publisher so they are liable as hell just like we are for the content posted on this forum.
You just don't understand an iota of this case and you call others who do, clueless?
Actually you don't know about in the US either because you got it wrong.
In the US automated processes that publish content are not subject to the same rules as content published by humans.
This has been decided in courts in the usa on a few different issues.
By the way... what do think Google published? I didn't read about them publishing anything, I only read about them making a search term suggestion... is that considered a publication now?
[edited by: cien at 10:29 pm (utc) on Oct 1, 2010]
Users never authorized Google to display their searches to others. That's internal data Google chose to display to others on its own.
Rules or laws?
where exactly did you get that from?
. I bet the issues in contention in those cases had nothing to do even remotely with the issue being discussed here.
By Google displaying content they are publishing.
just like we are when we write a defamatory comment on these boards.
[edited by: Demaestro at 10:48 pm (utc) on Oct 1, 2010]
First, and fundamentally, in Mr. X's case, it is not clear that any statement at all was made by Google Suggest about Mr. X. To the contrary, Google Suggest was simply posing a question to the searcher (albeit in shorthand): "Do you want to search on ‘Mr. X' and ‘rapist, as many other users have done before you?"
Questions cannot be defamatory; only statements can. (Granted, there might be an exception for a clear rhetorical question, but that's not this case.)
And, if conjoining the words "Mr. X." and "rapist" makes a statement, what precisely is that statement? Can it even be a statement without a verb?
One might be tempted to say that, here, the verb is implied, and the statement is "Mr. X is a rapist." But in other contexts, "rapist" might come up, via Google Suggest, in conjunction with, say, a rape prosecutor or rape victim, and the guess of "is" for the verb would be dead wrong.
And to protect First Amendment rights, the legal system ought to focus on the reasonable user as its guide, when deciding how a Google Suggest result will be interpreted -- not the user who is prone to jump to conclusions, interpolate words, and assume facts, rather than clicking through to find out for himself or herself what the truth really is.
Users don't need to authorize it, it is Google's data to do with as they please.
Where did Google get it so it could be suggested?
They don't need to, it is Google's data.
both
Previous court cases
But it isn't just like that... when someone writes a deafamatory comment anywhere they do so with intent.
[edited by: cien at 11:02 pm (utc) on Oct 1, 2010]
Ok, can quote the cases here or any links to relevant news so we can go read about them.
Which laws? Can you please quote the laws here.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
Defamation doesn't have to be intentional.
[edited by: cien at 11:56 pm (utc) on Oct 1, 2010]
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
[edited by: cien at 12:36 am (utc) on Oct 2, 2010]
From other search queries from other users.
Google suggestions is not an "interactive computer service"
No one was calling you clueless...
I love a good debate but this isn't debatable. Google search is the definition of an interactive computer service.
Thanks for the lively conversation but when you start making assertions like that I really don't know what else to say.
[edited by: cien at 3:08 am (utc) on Oct 2, 2010]
Google suggestions is not an "interactive computer service"
I love a good debate but this isn't debatable. Google search is the definition of an interactive computer service.
It would be different if Google was ignoring a long standing problem with the suggestion engine, or if their the algo was written in a such way that there was bias towards defamatory implications. But this is absolutely not the case.
If you can be sued for defamation for something done by neutral piece of code, written with no bias whatsoever, then where does that end?
What does people's understanding of what a domain name is have to do with search suggestions?
What does your opinion about the economics of Google's search suggestions (and how they effect traffic to your websites) have to do with a defamation lawsuit in France?
We should close this now.
