Google warns that defamation case ruling will force it to 'censor' the internet

[Avro Arrow]

Minor pedantic correction: They can and they do. Both explicitly and thinly veiled (But nonetheless veiled) advertising results as well as the actual result order.

I am not saying this is explicitly what's argued in the case (Doesn't seems like it) or that it should weight heavily or how heavily whenever or not a result is buried, shown as normal, Google promotes it (Something we know sites can do) or Google chooses to remain willfully ignorant to intentional manipulation tactics like getting a bunch of bots to search for it (Or even more low tech, some exploitative contact center of actual people getting paid very little to manually search it repeatedly to gain the algorith, a practice that sadly it's still common on weaker economies around the world) I am not taking a more specific position.

In fact you're welcome to argue *any* of the points I just brought up are ultimately not important to the overall decision idgaf honestly, but it should be clarified that Google not only alters search engine results, but has a business model that depends on it.

I don't disagree with you, I was just being theoretical. Of course I know that Google does that, I just don't want them to be mandated to do so.

 

[Burty117]

Yes, I am mixing metaphors a bit here. In Google's case, however, they are not simply presenting hyperlinks. They are prioritizing which links appear on top and those that appear on page 2. So they are having some input as to how those links are presented. One wonders what links are being ignored or tossed aside in order to present the results.

That's easy to figure out, use a different search engine and see what results come back from them. DuckDuckGo I tend to try if Google isn't finding what I'm after.

Here's an example. I Googled Jan 6 Capitol Riot. 6 pages in I do not see a single link referencing any Fox News regarding the riots. If Google is curating what gets presented in a search result then I'd say they are "publishing" the results. If it's a random, alphabetized list, then fine.

Well lets do a test here and now I guess. When I Google the same thing, Fox appears on the fourth page. If I use DuckDuckGo, I get foxnews on the first page. Interesting results right?

As for accuracy of information, I was really thinking more of FB because they do take a direct hand in determining what is "factual" and what isn't. The overall point, if you "publish" or editorialize posts then I think you bear some responsibility for that.

I do kinda get what you're saying, I do, but the honest truth is, there is only so much they can reasonably do. They already filter a lot, the amount of filth on the internet is astounding and they already censor a lot of it. Asking them to get involved in every little post or Journalist hit piece would mean basically hiring half the world to monitor the other half of the world and decide what they posted is ok to stay on the internet or not, completely removing freedom of speech as we currently know it.

Back to the test though, interesting how the competition finds what you're after better than Google? It's almost like competition is a good thing...

 

[Joezeppy412]

Yes, I am mixing metaphors a bit here. In Google's case, however, they are not simply presenting hyperlinks. They are prioritizing which links appear on top and those that appear on page 2. So they are having some input as to how those links are presented. One wonders what links are being ignored or tossed aside in order to present the results. Here's an example. I Googled Jan 6 Capitol Riot. 6 pages in I do not see a single link referencing any Fox News regarding the riots. If Google is curating what gets presented in a search result then I'd say they are "publishing" the results. If it's a random, alphabetized list, then fine.

As for accuracy of information, I was really thinking more of FB because they do take a direct hand in determining what is "factual" and what isn't. The overall point, if you "publish" or editorialize posts then I think you bear some responsibility for that.

To be fair, I’d be surprised if Fox News uses the term “capitol riot” when referring to that peaceful gathering of patriotic citizens.

 

[ET3D]

The reasonable way for Google to go would be to work towards having a search return all the relevant aspects, like in this case both the article about murder charges and the withdrawal of those charges.

That could still easily be manipulated, as australia is more focused on censoring things they dont like, not the truth.

I think that's a good way to go regardless of Australia. Google tends to return popular pages or things related to your past searches. Googling not returning a complete picture is a problem by itself, and I think that it's something that needs to be worked towards. As a side effect it might help cases like this, but I think it will be helpful in general.