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

161–170 of 220 posts

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#161

Post by chaostheory »

anon84873628 wrote: post #158
testplzignore wrote: post #3

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... has some actual details of what this is about.

The most interesting sequence of the decision to me: >The Court reasoned that only once Google acquired knowledge of the paragraphs by reason of Dr Duffy’s notifications and failed to remove them within a reasonable time thereafter would the necessary mental element be present for Google to be a “secondary publisher”. > ... >The Court then turned to look at the notice given by Dr. Duffy, to ascertain whether it was s…

This will continue the trend for more censorship in search.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#162

Post by anon84873628 »

Retric wrote: post #101
aardvarkr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

>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.

It's not like the plaintiff went to Google with a prior legal judgment against the RipOff website telling Google to take it down. Apparently the court expects Google to remove (within one month) "self-evident" defamatory content if alerted to it.

That's a pretty interesting precedent to set. What makes defamation"self-evident"?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#163

Post by lazyasciiart »

tadfisher wrote: post #155
jsnell wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP's complaint was about not being able to notify Google at all, not at not getting the right outcome. I'm pretty sure submissions to that form will have (trained) human eyes on them after some trivial spam filtering, it's not just redirected to /dev/null. As for whether one could expect results, there are stats on how often this functionality is used in the EU (about 200k requests per year) and how often it is s…

Not correct, the original lawsuit (from 2015) was predicated on the fact that she had indeed opened a removal request, and Google denied it, saying they could do nothing without the cooperation of the website owner (RipoffReport).

What is 'not correct' in the comment you're replying to?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#164

Post by kozikow »

munk-a wrote: post #75
code51 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a few people pursue a lawsuit against them I'm pretty sure they'll get more responsive. TBH Google is notoriously awful to communicate with - I don't know if you've ever dealt with one of their B2B products but they even hate talking to companies that pay them 10k a year.

That's not just external facing problem. Even when internally you want to figure out something - e.g. get a quota for something it's very hard to locate who could get things done for you.

There is this attitude that humans shouldn't ever talk to other humans, but to systems. So if your use case is not handled by how the system was designed, talking to humans would take many months, so better just give up.

The problem may be even worse internally tbh. You want to use some project, there's old teams page, one email, you email person there and after 3 pings weeks later they reply they work now on a different team.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#165

Post by barbazoo »

chaostheory wrote: post #161
anon84873628 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting sequence of the decision to me: >The Court reasoned that only once Google acquired knowledge of the paragraphs by reason of Dr Duffy’s notifications and failed to remove them within a reasonable time thereafter would the necessary mental element be present for Google to be a “secondary publisher”. > ... >The Court then turned to look at the notice given by Dr. Duffy, to ascertain whether it was s…

This will continue the trend for more censorship in search.

How will this add to "censorship"?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#166

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

unmole wrote: post #145
arp242 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak... Amid taxi strikes and riots in Paris, Kalanick ordered French executives to retaliate by encouraging Uber drivers to stage a counter-protest with mass civil disobedience. Warned that doing so risked putting Uber drivers at risk of attacks from “extreme right thugs” who had infiltrated the taxi protests and were “spoiling for a fight”, Kalanick appea…

Ah, so it's the French Taxi drivers and far right thugs who were indulging in violence. But it's clearly Uber's fault. They were asking for it. /s

the part about Uber using their employees as expendible pawns and encouraging them to go into harm's way sounds pretty damning

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#167

Post by doctorpangloss »

nolist_policy wrote: post #140
matsemann wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I try? I don't use Chrome. I don't care about jumping through hoops to do free work for a big scummy company. I only knew of it from news reports recently after it finally got fixed. https://www.kode24.no/artikkel/derfor-googler-chrome-no-nett...

Great, it has a link to the bug: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=148880... Fix was commited 7 days after the report was filed.

Here's an example of Google bug tracking being pretty dysfunctional: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32380769

Anyway, Chrome's responsiveness on some random issue isn't at all representative of Google as a whole, which of course, it is impracticable for laypeople to communicate with a real person there.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#168

Post by gshubert17 »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #146
code51 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone could make Google more responsive by publishing a guide on how to sue Google while representing yourself. Some basic information about court procedure and submissions, and a guide to the relevant law, such as defamation, would let a thousand litigants bloom, and Google would soon have a very real problem on their hands. Most likely you'd get Google's attention at the first step, and a probably solution.

If Google didn't index this guide, how would people find it?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#169

Post by l33t7332273 »

barbazoo wrote: post #165
chaostheory wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will continue the trend for more censorship in search.

How will this add to "censorship"?

Google and others will likely prefer to take a hardline stance on what is “self evidently” defamatory, and when you combine heavy handedness with automation, you will almost surely be censoring legal content.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#170

Post by AdrianB1 »

barbazoo wrote: post #165
chaostheory wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will continue the trend for more censorship in search.

How will this add to "censorship"?

Similar to that quote, it is self-evident. If you can be punished for stuff that you index (as a search engine), you will start to self-censor to avoid punishment.
Post reply on HN