With respect, I think you've got it quite wrong.
On the question of proving damages, that is the same in England and the US: both make a distinction between libel (or slander) per se and per quod. Libel per se covers statements that require no proof of damage because they are inherently damaging on the face of it. Falsely stating that someone is a serial killer who murdered five women is to say they are guilty of a crime of moral turpitude, one of the criteria recognised as actionable per se in both England and the USA.
In the USA, you have the issue of the application of the New York Times v Sullivan standard which grants First Amendment protection to potentially defamatory statements made about a public figure requiring proof of actual malice. Because of the press freedom protections contained in the First Amendment, statements about a public figure (or a limited purpose public figure) are granted a higher degree of protection. If a person is a public figure, then you would need to show that the person making the defamatory statement knew it was false, but if they are not a public figure, then that requirement does not apply. I think it rather unlikely that the present facts would lead to the Sullivan standard being applied: other than having a small personal website/blog to discuss programming issues, the OP is not a "public figure".
Regarding malicious intent, you don't need to show that in England. It helps if you can: malicious intent undermines a number of defences including honest opinion, and the publication on a matter of public interest defence (s4 Defamation Act 2013, and before that the Reynolds test), but it does not undermine truth as a defence. The burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement does rest on the defendant in England in a way it may not in other jurisdictions. Malicious intent also goes to remedies. (It also wouldn't apply here: Google's algorithm cocking up is not "malicious intent", it is merely AI—automated incompetence.)
What the post you are replying to was likely referring to is the application of the "serious harm" test under s1 of the Defamation Act 2013, taken along with the requirement that the defamation amounted to "real and substantial tort" under the test established in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. While I have considerable sympathy for the OP, the serious harm test is hard to find as you'd have to establish how many people actually saw the material and how many people were led to believe he is a serial killer rather than a person who happens to unluckily share the same name as a serial killer.