351–360 of 587 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple people report that comments such as "Service was slow", or three star rating without comment were removed. If Google started to show how many reviews were removed, it was because the lawfare started to seriously affect the ratings.
Anecdotal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be noted that defamation law has a very low threshold in Germany, to the point that businesses routinely sue Google Maps users for less-than-5-stars reviews. Google had to change their display of reviews because of this. Three stars review is taken down for "libel": https://support.google.com/maps/thread/367778263/google-maps... HNer gets a legal threat after saying that he didn't like a doctor: https://new…
See also: Germany's leader filing hundreds of criminal complaints against people who insult him on social media: https://rmx.news/article/germany-chancellor-merz-quietly-fil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See also: Germany's leader filing hundreds of criminal complaints against people who insult him on social media: https://rmx.news/article/germany-chancellor-merz-quietly-fil...
"Germany's leader" - that's how you know it's a low-brow article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote a one star review and posted pictures of a badly burnt pizza served at a restaurant in Berlin. Google sent me an email telling me they removed that because the restaurant filed a defamation claim
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote a one star review and posted pictures of a badly burnt pizza served at a restaurant in Berlin. Google sent me an email telling me they removed that because the restaurant filed a defamation claim
[flagged]
I looked up how this works, and I found ads for law firms that specialize in removing bad reviews. They charge a set price for each review they remove. As a regular consumer, you just have to accept that your honest reviews will be removed, unless you're willing to risk going to court, where you'll have to prove that your subjective experience was accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See also: Germany's leader filing hundreds of criminal complaints against people who insult him on social media: https://rmx.news/article/germany-chancellor-merz-quietly-fil...
"Germany's leader" - that's how you know it's a low-brow article.
The confusion is due to blurring of distinction between the roles: Tool, Tool user and Tool provider. Traditionally, a human-agent who can have an intent and trigger an action is held liable for the consequences of the actions, not the tool. That human agent can be the tool user or tool provider. Tool user is liable in the case of misuse unintended purpose of the tool. Tool provider is liable when the use of the tool…
Another point from the article: they are not just aggregating content, but generating it. If you generate falsehoods, that are not even stated by your sources, of course you're responsible.
This can have significant impact to AI in Germany and the rest of Europe, but it's good to question it and hold people accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger Mercedes-Benz does this in limited cases. Waymo does it generally. (In China, Level 4 and 5 transfers risk to the manufacturer. This is the correct way to do it.)
That's not exactly the case in China, the current state of FSD is still pretty dumb, unless you consider transferring control back to the user at the very last minute before it crashes a proper way to handle risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the monopoly is not relevant for the court. It is relevant for Google though, because they want to transfer it to another product. And the court is saying that whatever that new product is, Google is not allowed to mislead the public by pretending it is search.
I'm not sure. Is it really just the misleading part that the court takes issue with, i.e portraying Gemini output as a search result? In my view, the ruling could mean that Gemini's output is legally seen as first-person speech by Google regardless of where it is published.
When I wrote "Gemini is not illegal" it would have been more correct to say that the court has not decided about Gemini but specifically about search.
And I do think it makes sense to distinguish between explicitly chatting with an LLM and entering something in the search bar people have used for decades now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the monopoly is not relevant for the court. It is relevant for Google though, because they want to transfer it to another product. And the court is saying that whatever that new product is, Google is not allowed to mislead the public by pretending it is search.
I'm not sure. Is it really just the misleading part that the court takes issue with, i.e portraying Gemini output as a search result? In my view, the ruling could mean that Gemini's output is legally seen as first-person speech by Google regardless of where it is published.
To me it seems pretty reasonable that content Google generates with Gemini and publishes on their own google.com domain is their speech. Or at least they are fully editorially responsible.