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

101–110 of 220 posts

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#101

Post by Retric »

aardvarkr wrote: post #76
Popeyes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy story, so she shit-posted on a dubious forum, they shit-posted back and then she sued Google for defamation.

That’s my take too. It’s pretty ludicrous

So as is often the case the details are what matter. Google failed to remove defamatory content from their systems after being informed it was defamatory. That’s the case, and they lost because it’s their responsibility to respect such notifications.

It’s like that hot coffee lawsuit. They were held 80% liable because the coffee was served at a seriously unsafe temperature, which isn’t total liability. She got 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her skin and lesser burns over 16 percent, spent 8 days in the hospital and needed skin grafts. But everyone seems to think coffee = hot and not that dangerous when ignoring the possibility it can be made more dangerous.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#102

Post by Nasrudith »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #21

> The Court went on to note that the mental element depends on whether the defendant is a “primary publisher” or a “secondary publisher”. A “primary publisher” may be held liable for defamation regardless of whether it knows of the defamatory material, whereas a “secondary publisher” is only held liable if it knows that what it was publishing contains the passage in question or is reckless or careless as to its conta…

Its not cluelessness. It is deliberately obtuseness. They were the patient Zero of the Murdoch media infection.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#103

Post by numbsafari »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #94
bluGill wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist. If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.

If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated. Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.

I think your calculation is wrong.

There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others.

You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free time?

Find a better way.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#104

Post by matsemann »

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.

Chrome has had a bug for ~6 months where for certain TLDs, it searches instead of going to the typed url. It happens for .no. Google isn't incentivized to fix it, since they now most likely get a visitor on their search page and earn some money.

Combined with a different issue, this is fairly dangerous: Google allows fake scam websites to pay to get the top ad. Above the URL you ended up searching for.

There are cases of people writing skatteetaten.no (our IRS) in Chrome, ending up in google search instead, and they then click the top result which is a phishing site stealing their credentials.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#105

Post by Nasrudith »

glimshe wrote: post #53
postingawayonhn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if Google adds a lot of value to our society should we not consider amending our laws to make the business viable?

How would that work? Business becomes big by breaking the laws then we change the laws so business stays big?

How did opening up dispensaries work after marijuana was legalized? People complain en-masse/lobbied "this law is fucking stupid" and it gets amended.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#106

Post by arp242 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #95
arp242 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting messages and making up that a friend's wife committed suicide is not really "stalking" or "persistently and obsessively harassing". Immoral and possibly illegal? Perhaps. But that's not the same thing. Also, Duffy was ripped off by Kasamba. I think the crux of the matter is: even if you did something wrong, do things like that really need to be preserved on the internet under your real name for the rest of yo…

> Also, Duffy was ripped off by Kasamba. Can you really be ripped off by psychics? It's not like you can sue a church because your prayers haven't been answered, so I'm not sure of religion or spiritualism can be a "rip-off". If someone tells you they'll talk to your dead ancestors for money and you don't believe them, who's to say who's speaking the truth? The best you can do is use reasoning like "there's no scient…

"Ripped off" in the colloquial sense, not in the strict legal sense.

Most psychics don't actually believe what they're selling, whereas most priests do.

Prayer also works very different: a psychic will tell you "higher powers told me this man is a {good,bad} match for you", whereas a priest will tell you to "pray and ask God for guidance" and/or offer you some general advice, but they won't say "God told me to relay that [..]".

Should they be sued for it? Probably not. But I do think most psychic "customers" get ripped off by people who are essentially little more than confidence tricksters, but I don't think most people who go to church get ripped off (outside of the "send me your money and go to heaven" kind of twattery).

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#107

Post by kriro »

acdha wrote: post #41
kriro wrote: post #31

If I'm Google I'd just stop indexing this site after the ruling and also talk to my competitors and suggest they do the same because it's bad for them. Seems like they index it but downweight already. Pretty interesting ruling that a search engine is basically liable for autocomplete (and thus the content they index). The original website seems pretty shady and not being indexed should basically destroy their busines…

> If I'm Google I'd just stop indexing this site after the ruling and also talk to my competitors and suggest they do the same because it's bad for them. Seems like they index it but downweight already. That’s what they refused to do after losing the previous case on appeal. That means they no longer have any way to claim they didn’t know about it, since they spent large sums of money fighting it in court.

I get that and I'd accept the ruling (going to the highest possible court because this is kind of important for them). I'd just use it as a good opportunity to de-index a troubling site without any of the potential legal issues that could come with that (unfairly discriminating against said site or whatever).

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#108

Post by MichaelZuo »

numbsafari wrote: post #103
MichaelZuo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated. Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.

I think your calculation is wrong. There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others. You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free tim…

Have you gotten confused about the topic?

The court can already do this if the ruling holds which is why we are discussing it in the first place. Your phrasing it as if it's up to individual members of society to decide to impose on each other. If you think this is relevant, can you describe how?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#109

Post by Andrex »

flavius29663 wrote: post #63
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.

That sentence implies to me that she represented herself, not that Google was without representation.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#110

Post by Zarel »

flavius29663 wrote: post #63
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.

You're misinterpreting that sentence. This overview of the case was posted:

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v...

And in it, it talks about Google's defenses (innocent dissemination, qualified privilege, and justification), so clearly Google did show up.

Post reply on HN