Live data from Hacker News

Google turned me into a serial killer

hristo-georgiev.com

121–130 of 313 posts

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#121
post #88

I don't see what the big deal here. The serial killer really did exist, and has the same name as the author of the blog post. Searching for "Hristo Georgiev" using Bing and DuckDuckGo turns up the article about the serial killer as the first link. Why is this not "DuckDuckGo turned me into a serial killer", other than people hating on Google? Suppose his name was "Thomas Edison"; would the title of the article then r…

>Why is this not "DuckDuckGo turned me into a serial killer", other than people hating on Google?

I think it is mostly Google using his picture with the incorrect description below. I feel that is harder to catch for someone taking a quick glance than if the correct picture was used.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#122
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would req. showing that law was broken. I don't think in this case it was. More like a mistake.

If Google refused to fix it, it might be different. But I expect that, if someone were to file a suit, not even trying to get it fixed wouldn't be seen as acting in good faith.

Does every person who is impacted by this kind of thing have the responsibility to do Google's QC for them? What about people who never notice it? Maybe a lawsuit would be hopeless, but it sure would be nice to see some kind of real consequences here.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#123
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extreme reading: white men of the past and (some) of the present were/are racist, therefore we all are. It should go without saying that (probably) isn't a charitable reading.

It boggles my mind how we went from a google search result to white supremacy. I'd like people to please exercise restraint, the world feels like it is falling apart where every conversation becomes political/racial. If this is going on HN, I wonder how it is elsewhere.

Yeah, it’s a bit much. The “extreme” reading is slowly becoming the only acceptable one. Partly because of comments like the one precipitating the thread: there’s no good reason to try to connect these items.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#124
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprisingly easy, just time-involved, to sue large corporations in small claims, at least in some jurisdictions. Yes, they've got lawyers, but if you have a case you may still win. I sued one of the largest telecoms in Canada for not honouring a verbal contract, and won quite easily once I proved the facts in dispute. Businesses assume people won't have the commitment to carry through and actually take them to…

Google is not a typical large corp though. They will spend millions on top lawyers for even small cases even if settling costs far less, just to make a point that they do not lose. If a company shows a willingness to settle or they they lose easily, then that makes them vulnerable to future litigation. Contingency lawyers will not take on companies that do not lose or settle.

You're replying to a comment that says "in small claims" and lawyers don't appear in small claims court. Though I don't know about winning vs Google there, just that it's worked against Uber.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#126
post #3

I would sue for damage. EDIT: Because they put an image with unterlated information together in such a way that it misleads people.

Damages require proof. Unless they can show they lost something because of the mistake, then there are no damages.

Although in the US damages for defamation can include compensatory damages (intended to "make the plaintiff whole" by compensating for monetary losses) they can also include general damages for non-economic impacts (for example mental anguish & damage to reputation) as well as other types of damages.

However, not all US states allow all types of damage claims and/or have special rules or higher burdens of proof related to those types of claims.

Generally speaking though, it is incorrect to say that somebody must show that they have had actual, monetary damages in order to be successful in a defamation lawsuit.

This overview from the Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) has some helpful info: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#127
post #8
post #2

I'm glad this guy has a sense of humor about this, but I really hope that Google does right by him and that he doesn't get stuck in their Byzantine customer service process.

Actually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.

Figuring out or demonstrating the "Quantifiably injurious" part might be very hard https://thelawdictionary.org/article/when-to-sue-for-defamat...

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#129
This kind of thing is part of why I go ask people questions in areas where I don't have a lot of domain knowledge rather than just search for it. (That's not to imply I don't do a search first. That seems awkwardly worded and I can't think of a better way to say it.)

I'm a decent read of people and talented at figuring out who actually makes sense and should be listened to. So going to people with domain knowledge and talking to them is usually the most efficient and effective means for me to get meaningful information when I am out of my depth.

It's also why I try to be patient with people online and answer seemingly "dumb" questions instead of telling people to google it. In many cases, if you aren't familiar with the subject, you won't know the best search terms and you won't know that the top result is commercial garbage and not really the gold standard source on the subject.

I routinely provide links for things like SRO because not only do people often not know that stands for Single Room Occupancy, if you google it you get a variety of unrelated hits (Standing Room Only, for example).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

I was involved for a time with The TAG Project. I generally try to remember to provide a link for that as well because when I search for it, the thing I was involved with is not the top hit.

The top hit is thetagproject.com. I worked for tagfam.org and it is typically the third hit when I search for it.

I fairly often see people being obnoxious about "you should Google that" and I sometimes understand why they are aggravated with certain things, but I generally think that's asshole behavior.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#130

If you want to see a terrible example of Google automatically finding a "best" search result for the #1 entry of something, google the following: "how many raccoons can fit"

For anyone who's curious but not enough to actually run the search themselves, the top results (using the string without quotes) all relate to how many raccoons can fit into a human anus. No, I am not joking, and this is the result of 20+ years of web search development and decades of cutting edge AI research, right here. Honestly, it pisses me off how bad Google's search is these days. It has close to zero clue abou…

Google knows the answers to the questions we were afraid to ask.
Post reply on HN