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

Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 220 posts

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#61

Post by Symmetry »

Y-bar wrote: post #18
cwillu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, the problem is that google surfaced posts claiming she was a stalker, when she merely lied about a psychic having caused her friend to commit suicide in posts about that psychic. Or something.

Google appears to be still allowed to surface content which is defamatory, but they still have a publisher's duty to remove it once notified, I think this is key from the summary (linked elsewhere in the discussion): > […] because [Google] was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information

I don't think it's reasonable for Google to remove content whenever someone just says its defamatory, in the absence of a court finding that it's actually defamatory. Otherwise we'd quickly lose every reference to Biden winning the 2020 election once it was widely known that the rule existed.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#62

Post by ourmandave »

I'm just wondering how the Google internal legal dept handled this for 12 years.

I'm imagining they called it the Duffy file and gave it to interns every year.

Or maybe assigned it personnel with low annual reviews. "Dave, we're giving you the Duffy case until you get your numbers up."

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#63

Post by flavius29663 »

Euphorbium wrote: post #40

You probably need to go into 12 year legal battle against google to get some human response from them.

Not even that, google didn't show up

> A line has been finally been drawn under an Adelaide woman's 12-year legal battle against global tech giant Google after she sued the company twice, mostly unrepresented, and won.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#64

Post by Symmetry »

numbsafari wrote: post #26
herodotus wrote: post #22

>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…

Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.

That's true in principle, but in this case I think that the existence of search engines is a net social good and I think it would be a big loss for all of us if they disappeared. Not that the days of web rings and hand-curated website lists didn't have their own charm but I think that the net effect would be a huge increase in the power of walled gardens.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#65

Post by cool_dude85 »

Y-bar wrote: post #18
cwillu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, the problem is that google surfaced posts claiming she was a stalker, when she merely lied about a psychic having caused her friend to commit suicide in posts about that psychic. Or something.

Google appears to be still allowed to surface content which is defamatory, but they still have a publisher's duty to remove it once notified, I think this is key from the summary (linked elsewhere in the discussion): > […] because [Google] was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information

It seems like under Australian law there's a concept of a "secondary publisher" of defamatory content, which would typically be a bookstore or library. So, the actual publisher, author, etc. can be held liable for defamation, but also, if the bookstore has been notified that it is selling a defamatory book and does not take it off the shelf, it too can be held liable.

In this case, the woman notified Google that their search results for her were defamatory, Google did not take them down, and Google was held to be a secondary publisher because their algorithm actively determined what URL to show, what snippet to show, etc.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#66

Post by petee »

crobertsbmw wrote: post #4

There’s a difference between “settles” and “wins”. Sounds like they settled, but then they talk like she won…

Afaik a settlement against a company like google is essentially win for a couple reasons -- if Google could win on merit, they can afford to do so; but if they were going to lose, the cost of completing the trial would be even higher than a settlement.

Particularly, if she got the redactions and compensation she was looking for, thats certainly a win.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#67

Post by code51 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #54
adriand wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting detail - Google's autocomplete suggestions for the plaintiff's name were found to be defamatory: > Dr. Duffy became aware that when people searched her name on Google’s search engine, the Google search bar provided an autocomplete suggested search term of “janice duffy psychic stalker”. [...] Google was also found [by the court] to be the “publisher” of autocomplete suggestions that came up whe…

It's not so much "be careful with your UI" as "when you're actually notified that your UI is treading on somebody, you better stop (treading on that particular person)".

But how can you notify Google of anything?

Even when you report an important bug, bots and "product experts" just shrug it off. The only "notification" for Google is a lawsuit it seems.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#68

Post by dghughes »

HPsquared wrote: post #9
Lacerda69 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nah she won and did a great service to her fellow human beings. this was not lost or wasted time. people spend decades on far more "useless" things - not that there is anything wrong with that

Indeed, society needs such people. Heroic, in a way.

Did you read what started it all? She's in no way a heroic.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#69

Post by b112 »

hn_go_brrrrr wrote: post #20
HPsquared wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, society needs such people. Heroic, in a way.

Heroic, but also pyrrhic.

Good grief, she hardly spent every waking moment on it.

Court actions are bursts of "lots of work", followed by months of waitng. To hear you people talk, it's all she did!

It's like she had a hobby. The way some are talking, she destroyed her life?!?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#70

Post by krisoft »

code51 wrote: post #67
unsupp0rted wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much "be careful with your UI" as "when you're actually notified that your UI is treading on somebody, you better stop (treading on that particular person)".

But how can you notify Google of anything? Even when you report an important bug, bots and "product experts" just shrug it off. The only "notification" for Google is a lawsuit it seems.

> But how can you notify Google of anything?

Same way you notify any other company about anything. Registered letter sent to the corporate headquaters.

Post reply on HN