Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform

#51

Post by [deleted] »

asdff wrote: post #49
throwaway5752 wrote: post #6

Why is there so much attention on Google? It's market cap is $800B. Amazon and Microsoft are roughly $1T. Facebook is $600B. We're not a bunch of rubes here, to have this many articles proposing sanctions and/or breakup of Google has all the fingerprints of coordinated action. It's less than a month after the US president saying he would sue them because he felt they didn't give conservative sources favorable enough…

The top 10 tech companies are interchangeably flamed here and all over the internet and for good reason. This isn't a google problem, you just happen to be in a google thread.

[deleted]

Re: Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform

#52

Post by apostacy »

ac29 wrote: post #48
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #20

It's amazing how many scams and malware-serving websites are in Google Ads, and how aggressively Google refuses to address it. I've actually had Googlers (here on HN) go and report and have removed the malicious sites I reported, just to see them back a handful of hours later, without so much as rotating domain names out. Google must be stripped of any profit from criminal activity on their platform. When a fraudulen…

> Section 230 absolutely has to go for order and justice to prevail. For those who are unfamiliar with the reference, section 230 is a provision of a telecommunications act that gives legal immunity to platform providers that host user-provided content [0]. Getting rid of it would absolutely kill this site and 99.99% of similar sites by effectively requiring all user generated content to go through legal review. Abse…

I don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of 230, but it should be narrowed. I think an ideal compromise would be that ubiquitous mega-platforms should be held somewhat responsible for what their users post, under certain circumstances.

If a platform is already protectively policing and curating content, then they are not really a platform, they are more of a publisher.

Companies like Facebook and YouTube should absolutely be open to lawsuits for what users post. They are already investing significant resources in regulating what users post anyway, so they are taking responsibility for it.

I think even large websites should still get full 230 protection, if they only have minimal moderation to remove spam or blatantly illegal content, like Craigslist. Craigslist is much more of a neutral platform than Facebook.

Re: Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform

#53

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

apostacy wrote: post #52
ac29 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Section 230 absolutely has to go for order and justice to prevail. For those who are unfamiliar with the reference, section 230 is a provision of a telecommunications act that gives legal immunity to platform providers that host user-provided content [0]. Getting rid of it would absolutely kill this site and 99.99% of similar sites by effectively requiring all user generated content to go through legal review. Abse…

I don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of 230, but it should be narrowed. I think an ideal compromise would be that ubiquitous mega-platforms should be held somewhat responsible for what their users post, under certain circumstances. If a platform is already protectively policing and curating content, then they are not really a platform, they are more of a publisher. Companies like Facebook and YouTube shou…

They’re investing significant resources in regulation because the public and lawmakers have demanded they do. Craigslist can afford to be more neutral only because nobody’s trying to organize cyberbullying campaigns or Rohingya genocides through Craigslist.

Re: Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform

#54

Post by throwaway5752 »

asdff wrote: post #49
throwaway5752 wrote: post #6

Why is there so much attention on Google? It's market cap is $800B. Amazon and Microsoft are roughly $1T. Facebook is $600B. We're not a bunch of rubes here, to have this many articles proposing sanctions and/or breakup of Google has all the fingerprints of coordinated action. It's less than a month after the US president saying he would sue them because he felt they didn't give conservative sources favorable enough…

The top 10 tech companies are interchangeably flamed here and all over the internet and for good reason. This isn't a google problem, you just happen to be in a google thread.

Appreciate your comment, but I've been posting here in various capacities for about a decade and employed in tech for about twice that long.

I am not talking about HN's reaction, but the wider pattern of calls from high levels to investigate and break up Alphabet. It is functionally the same as AT&T and Time Warner - using the threat of antitrust and other powers of the FTC to get favorable treatment and harm adversaries. It is new and dangerous.

Re: Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform

#55

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ac29 wrote: post #48
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #20

It's amazing how many scams and malware-serving websites are in Google Ads, and how aggressively Google refuses to address it. I've actually had Googlers (here on HN) go and report and have removed the malicious sites I reported, just to see them back a handful of hours later, without so much as rotating domain names out. Google must be stripped of any profit from criminal activity on their platform. When a fraudulen…

> Section 230 absolutely has to go for order and justice to prevail. For those who are unfamiliar with the reference, section 230 is a provision of a telecommunications act that gives legal immunity to platform providers that host user-provided content [0]. Getting rid of it would absolutely kill this site and 99.99% of similar sites by effectively requiring all user generated content to go through legal review. Abse…

This is exactly what these companies want you to believe, but the Internet would survive removing platform immunity. The incentive would definitely move in favor of platforms policing content, but the "chilling effect" would be limited if these platforms wished to remain in business (they do).

As I noted in one of my comments, if illicit profits were confiscated even, platforms would have significant motivation to remove illicit content, even if they couldn't be charged for criminal activity themselves.

Post reply on HN