A am with @incrediBILL here smells fishy would a judge fine a news paper paper report of the same event "an atempted gamg land hit" that mentioed the guys name.
I think a "resonable person" would think there is somthing more to this story.
Google does play fast and lose with the "algorithem did it" line but in this case I don't think this is a good judgement.
12:17 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)
It was a judgement by a court of law that was privy to the full facts of the case. I think we have to accept that their decision was better than any that could be arrived at through uninformed speculation in here. :)
9:06 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)
Google cannot hide behind the algo forever. If the algo does not produce legitimate results that comply with the law then the algo has to change.
Let's be honest about it - the Internet is still the Wild West. A lot of changes will have to happen over the coming years. If Google have to completely re-write the algo sometime in the future to comply with court decisions then, tough, they'll just have to accept it. Just as we will have to accept the inevitable turmoil. Interesting business to be in, isn't it?