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

Google turned me into a serial killer

hristo-georgiev.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 313 posts

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#271

Post by Clewza313 »

dajeuii wrote: post #239
AdamGibbins wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many countries you can't sue for defamation as easily as you appear to be able to the US. In the UK its required that you demonstrate loss or reputational damage, given how obvious it is that this is a mistake and the speed in which it was fixed, I think its highly unlikely to stand up in court. Simply calling someone a name isn't enough. OP appears to be in Switzerland, where I'm not familiar with the laws.

You have it backwards, suing for defamation in the UK is considerably easier than in the US. The 1A in the US makes defamation and label very hard to prove - you must demonstrate that the statement is false, that the defamer knew it was false, and that you suffered damages as a result. All three must be met. In the UK malicious intent is all that is needed - even if the statement is in fact true.

In this particular case it would still be difficult to demonstrate malicious intent for an algorithmic decision.

I wonder if defamation laws need to be extended to cover defamation by negligence?

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#273

Post by hermitdev »

dntrkv wrote: post #160
da_chicken wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still Google's fault. If their service is providing out-of-date information, it's their fault. Making it sound like the business's fault for not using Google's other service is just reinforcing the idea that Google's information is the only information that's real. This is the problem with the web search and scaping provider also trying to be a thousand other services at the same time. It's a constant conflict…

> That's still Google's fault. If their service is providing out-of-date information, it's their fault. Huh? If the business owners aren't updating the correct info in My Business, how can that possibly be Google's fault?

Just because Google scrapes my website once to seed their database doesn't make me responsible for being their data monkey to keep it updated.

If Google is scraping this information and keeping it separate, unlinked and un-updated from its source of truth, how is that anyone but Google's fault?

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#274

Post by matheusmoreira »

_etyf wrote: post #132

Google's Knowledge Graph info boxes are automatically-generated and littered with errors. I've been burned twice on operating hours, once for my local bank and once for a convenience store, driving over each time only to find the place closed. In both cases, the correct hours were posted on the business's website. I've also seen bad KG results for medical conditions, listing the wrong symptoms or describing easily-tr…

Google's medical information boxes are irresponsible. They are not accurate enough to serve the general population. They aren't detailed enough to be a useful reference for professionals either. Even a Wikipedia article is a better resource.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#275

Post by beerandt »

jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #163
beerandt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually had a similar case with AT&T, except they went back and listened to their recording of the call and confirmed the promise. No need to sue.

Wow that seems like a first, for once, finally, additional collected information was used to absolve someone. You are a lucky guy :D

Oh, it took some persistence and definitely wasn't a short process.

But damn was it satisfying.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#276

Post by hermitdev »

inimino wrote: post #109
tzs wrote: post #91

> It turns out that Google's knowledge graph algorithm somehow falsely associated my photo with the Wikipedia article about the serial killer. Which is also surprisingly strange because my name isn't special or unique at all; there are literally hundreds of other people with my name, and despite of all that, my personal photo ended up being associated with a serial killer. I can't really explain to myself how this ha…

Yes, but: the text snippet is clearly labeled "Wikipedia" and is in the same box with the photo. Combined with the Wikipedia article being the first result, this would certainly give the average person casually searching the impression that the data in the box comes from Wikipedia, which tends to be a reasonably accurate, conservative source on living persons. The idea of mashing up the first image search result with…

One might be so inclined to label Google a peddler of fabricated misinformation...

I seriously can't believe that the sources of the image and text aren't labeled with their respective sources. Doing so seems basic, obvious and trivial. Not doing so seems to be a blatant attempt to hide expected inaccuracies and make meaningless combinations of information seem more authoritative than it actually is.

While I think this individual would have a hard time in any court system, let alone the US court system, could Wikipedia perhaps have a claim of damages for libel (or something to this effect) due to misattributed information and reputational damage?

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#277

Post by efreak »

unishark wrote: post #265
gitgud wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sitcom like "Silicon Valley" I can imagine Google having to defend their algorithm in court, and prove he actually is a serial killer ...

then the surprise twist during credits, while walking home after narrowly winning the suit against Google due to an impassioned statement on the stand, he murders someone!

Sail not a _serial_ murderer though. You'd need a few more people for that.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#278

Post by j16sdiz »

Clewza313 wrote: post #271
dajeuii wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards, suing for defamation in the UK is considerably easier than in the US. The 1A in the US makes defamation and label very hard to prove - you must demonstrate that the statement is false, that the defamer knew it was false, and that you suffered damages as a result. All three must be met. In the UK malicious intent is all that is needed - even if the statement is in fact true.

In this particular case it would still be difficult to demonstrate malicious intent for an algorithmic decision. I wonder if defamation laws need to be extended to cover defamation by negligence?

Cover defamation by negligence would have very board implication.

Basically this meant you have to do research for everything you said. Could be a good thing, but this is not how the society works.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#279

Post by viraptor »

hermitdev wrote: post #273
dntrkv wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's still Google's fault. If their service is providing out-of-date information, it's their fault. Huh? If the business owners aren't updating the correct info in My Business, how can that possibly be Google's fault?

Just because Google scrapes my website once to seed their database doesn't make me responsible for being their data monkey to keep it updated. If Google is scraping this information and keeping it separate, unlinked and un-updated from its source of truth, how is that anyone but Google's fault?

You have to register your business page. It's not automatic. I believe op here meant a Google business listing which was created by the owner explicitly, but not updated.

Re: Google turned me into a serial killer

#280

Post by toomanyducks »

smsm42 wrote: post #192
Arnavion wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few days ago, a person in an IRC channel I'm in was convinced AMD GPUs have CUDA cores, because they put "amd 5500rx cuda cores" into Google, saw the infobox entry that said "How many CUDA cores does a Rx 5700 have? 2,560 CUDA cores" and stubbornly refused to accept Google could be wrong. Amusingly that same infobox then has a table that states "2,560 stream processors" in the "Radeon RX 5700 XT" column. So one hal…

ML is not at fault - it's probably doing what it's trained to do. It's the marketing that makes people expect that if ML blackbox managed to do a couple of parlor tricks like distinguishing a cat from a banana and faking something resembling a human-written text, if you don't look too closely, then it's almost as good as a human brain. It's not. It's pretty much as dumb as a refrigerator (a very complex one, with man…

I think it's valuable to shift the focus from the information to the presentation of information. The information isn't controlled by Google, but the presentation absolutely is, and as mentioned elsewhere, makes the ML look authoritative, and seems to be implying an attribution to (if not outright falsely sourcing) Wikipedia, contradictions and all.

The tech is pretty neat and all, but this is a blatant misuse.

Post reply on HN