I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told. You might as well say a car slandered you for backfiring as it drove by. Also... he doesn't own an exclusive right to the name 'Guy Hingston'.
In short, Mr. Hingston -- screw you. Also... Guy Hingston Bankrupt Guy Hingston Bankrupt Guy Hingston Bankrupt. I hope you do for having such a piss-po
1. Republishing slander is still slander. So simply saying Google is repeating what others tell them is no defense against slander charges.
2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreadi
2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreading slander, then Google IS responsible for it.
Your argument falls on its face because Google is not the active party here. It's more like you're ringing a number which records voice messages from anyone who wishes to leave one, hearing one that offends you, then blaming Google rather than the person who actually recorded the offensive message.
After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
No... but let's say a newspaper took a picture of that wall.
Now every time someone types "Anonymous" into the newpaper's news story search engine they automatically bring up "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" and maybe even show me a preview thumbnail of that picture. You can argue they are simply re-printing the news story, but if they are doing each time someone starts a search they are directing people to that information. These future searchers may not otherwise care to search for that story or those terms, b
Great analogy.
When I see the Slashdot libertarians, always adamant that Google's results must not be tampered with in any way even when it deprives innocent individuals of living their life in peace for no good reason, I wonder if they would be so steadfast if by some whim of circumstance their name was associated to something humiliating or nasty in Google and they couldn't find any employment due to it.
Is a computer language with goto's totally Wirth-less?
Slander and libel (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told. You might as well say a car slandered you for backfiring as it drove by. Also... he doesn't own an exclusive right to the name 'Guy Hingston'.
In short, Mr. Hingston -- screw you. Also... Guy Hingston Bankrupt Guy Hingston Bankrupt Guy Hingston Bankrupt. I hope you do for having such a piss-po
Re: (Score:1)
A few important points to note
1. Republishing slander is still slander. So simply saying Google is repeating what others tell them is no defense against slander charges.
2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreadi
Re:Slander and libel (Score:2)
2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreading slander, then Google IS responsible for it.
Your argument falls on its face because Google is not the active party here. It's more like you're ringing a number which records voice messages from anyone who wishes to leave one, hearing one that offends you, then blaming Google rather than the person who actually recorded the offensive message.
After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
Re: (Score:2)
After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
No... but let's say a newspaper took a picture of that wall.
Now every time someone types "Anonymous" into the newpaper's news story search engine they automatically bring up "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" and maybe even show me a preview thumbnail of that picture. You can argue they are simply re-printing the news story, but if they are doing each time someone starts a search they are directing people to that information. These future searchers may not otherwise care to search for that story or those terms, b
Re: (Score:1)