New York Times: Google's Algo is Fighting Exploitative, Slanderous Sites

[engine]

The New York Times is reporting that Google is fighting back against exploitative, slanderous websites by using its algorithm to prevent such sites appearing in searches.

The search giant is making a series of changes to its rankings to combat the sites, which Google’s vice president for global policy and standards and trust and safety David Graff said should eventually have a “significant and positive impact” for those affected. Now, when users report they’ve been a victim of these sites by using its pre-existing process, Google will register that person as a “known victim,” and will automatically “suppress” similar results for that person’s name, the Times says.

[nytimes.com...]
[theverge.com...]

[Wilburforce]

A commendable ambition, but it is difficult to predict how this will play out. Not only does it fly in the face of the First Amendment - not that this would bother us in the UK - but it also begs the question of whose testimony is reliable. I think what happened to Oscar Wilde is reprehensible, but the fact remains that his libel action backfired because the defence successfully argued that what was claimed to be libel was in fact substantially true.

How will Google determine whether an allegation is defamatory or whether it is in the public interest? Historically, settling that argument has been a function of the courts. Is Google now judge, jury and executioner?

I am personally very much in favour of systems that make it easier for the public at large to determine what is true - who wouldn't be? - but whether this is a positive contribution to that process or simply censorship by another name is unclear.

[EditorialGuy]

Not only does it fly in the face of the First Amendment

The First Amendment prohibits censorship or "policing of content" by the government, not by private entities.

[aristotle]

exploitative, slanderous websites

I'm confused. Aren't exploitative sites and slanderous sites two separate categories?

But "exploitative, slanderous" seems to refer only to sites that are both exploitative and slanderous? So that it's okay for a site to be slanderous as long as it isn't also exploitative. Or vice versa.

This just doesn't make much sense to me.

[NickMNS]

I'm confused. Aren't exploitative sites and slanderous sites two separate categories?

Yes they are, or can be two separate sites/categories, but if you read the New-Times article linked in the Verge article they describe how this industry functions. What they show is that the they use the slanderous sites to enable the exploitative sites. Essentially they are one (many) in the same.

Here is the link to the specific article:
[nytimes.com...]

The article is quite fascinating. It makes you wonder, how Google with it's supposed sophisticated ranking algo, has been unable (or willing) to prevent such basic spam technique being effective. I will point out that searches for individuals will tend to have very little competition or search volume and thus it should come as no surprise that simple spam/SEO techniques could be effective, but still.

[FranticFish]

My reading of this is that it is seen as extension of the 'right to be forgotten'.

What about cases where there are two people (or parties) involved? Specifically I'm thinking accuser / accused or petitioner / respondent.

Anyone have any idea about what rules would apply when there is more than one party involved and one wants privacy and the other does not? Or is that not on the table here?

And is this only for people or does it cover corporate identity too?

[tangor]

Heh! Good intentions, of course, but this will not end well. Very likely to have extraordinary "collateral damage" as we live in times when the easily offended have an outsized voice compared to the world's population.

One side effect might be switching to a different search vendor!

[aristotle]

NickMNS -- Thanks for the explanation and the link to the NYT article. Unfortunately I was only able to read the beginning of it before their paywall intervened. But I saw enough to get a basic understanding of how the scheme works.

I also looked at the other linked articles. Apparently you have to file a complaint with google and get it accepted as valid before any action is taken. Not something I would want to go through.

Because several of my websites provide information about controversial subjects, I've always kept a very low profile on the web. I've never put my name or any personal info on any of my sites, and the only way to contact me is through an email address on an image at the bottom of each article.
Occasionally I've gotten a hostile insulting email, but I get a lot more complimentary emails.

Anyway, I think it's best to not depend on google or anyone else to protect you. Take you own preventative measures and precautions. This includes not only slander, but also identity theft and website security.