'Bankrupt' Australian Surgeon Sues Google For Auto-Complete 305
An anonymous reader writes "Australian surgeon Guy Hingston is suing Google in the U.S. for 'auto-complete' defamation. Typing in his name brings up 'Guy Hingston bankrupt' in the auto-complete. The association seems to have come about because Hingston purchased an aviation group CoastJet which went bankrupt two-and-a-half years later. Hingston himself was also bankrupted. Hingston claims this association has cost him customers and is suing Google for $75k, plus court costs. Google has often found itself the target of litigation over auto-complete searches. Are auto-complete results even useful? Should Google be policing the auto-complete suggestions?"
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe he shouldn't of gone bankrupt.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
He didn't. His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google? It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino (although buying into aviation at this stage of the game could be argued as riskier) - the guy is being punished needlessly.
Does this have to go to a lawsuit though? Why can't Google seem to moderate themselves effectively? You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense.
I don't know what the case here is, but if he did try to contact Google then I'm sure they ignored him completely as they are wont to do.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous. Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Quoting (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently you missed his username.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure that Google autocomplete is the place to draw the line, but you do raise a good point. You have to think about this in the context of big data and modern government and corporate surveillance.
We all know the stories of people being placed on TSA watchlists, arrested, interrogated, and even tortured for having a similar name to a bad guy [wikipedia.org] or being the second cousin of a bad guy [wikipedia.org].
People's actions can be chilled or even lives ruined by very tenuous associations in databases. And whether through the Erdos/Bacon game, the assumption that correlation is the same as causation, or plain old coincidence, data mining can uncover associations which are false or misleading, even if they are statistically significant.
Now we may argue that people shouldn't base decisions on associations made by Google's machine learning algorithms. It is, ultimately, the responsibility of the person making the decision to evaluate the strength of the evidence rationally. In a perfect world, where everyone is perfectly sane and rational, and no snap judgments ever have to be made, we could assume this.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, these databases exist and are used. So how much responsibility should be placed on those maintaining the databases for making sure that the contents are accurate, particularly clearing up a mistake when it is pointed out? Is there additional responsibility if the database is accessible to the public?
It's a very interesting question, and I don't know the answer.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
"Google's machine learning algorithm" is itself a misleading phrase, since Google refines their algorithm using actual people and is quite capable of refining it to avoid causing this guy problems--they just didn't do it to him. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/07/194210/google-outlines-the-role-of-its-human-evaluators [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/story/12/11/27/1435219/googles-manual-for-its-unseen-human-raters [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People who criticised autocomplete right from the start for sending every keystroke directly to Google were ignored as "privacy hardliners", if there can be such a thing. Now autocomplete shows the ugly side of its face, but people don't even question it anymore.
Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the privacy of the doctor, you're talking about the privacy of the searcher (which is a little weird even out of context, since all autocomplete is doing is pre-sending information that had been keyed into a search box with the explicit intent of sending it to Google to perform searches).
in this case, however, its talking more about the priority of various results. If you google "Guy Hingston", news about his bankruptcy is certainly not prominent on the page
Re: (Score:3)
For one thing, with over 6 billion people in the world, there's bound to be more than one person with the same first and last name. You would at least perform the auto-suggested query to see what the web pages say. See if it's even referring to the same person.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
How do you annul a bankruptcy? And even if it's annulled, it did happen. He was bankrupt, even if, like the stars, it was only 23 hours between marriage and annulment. If that annulment mattered, then "Guy Hingston" should complete to "Guy Hingston bankruptcy annuled", and that would be perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...And even if it's annulled, it did happen...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google?
Yes. Because that's what you'll find prominently in the articles mentioning his name.
Someone looking for a cancer surgeon is going to google his name and then cross it off without even reading beyond the autocomplete? Bullshit. This just a guy trying to turn the bad press his failing businesses generated into a payday.
you should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me
You should be able to ignore it and get on with your life. Google doesn't create the articles it indexes. It's not Google's responsibility to hide ones you find embarrassing. Quite the opposite. Maybe this doctor wants to borrow money from me and I want to know his business history. If Google hides that, and I loan him money and he stiffs me, should I then sue Googel?
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile?
So, you use the Chewbacca defence, then?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
Unlike a billboard google just displays the most common search terms, it's a statistical fact, not an endorsement.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
Anyone who claims that google auto-complete reflects google's opinion is also being ridiculous. Having said that I do agree with the rest of your post, I like the basic concept of the "right to be forgotten", I also think there should be some mechanism whereby a person can demand their name be removed from a commercial search index with no questions asked other than proof of identity. OTOH I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice with common names.
easy to be forgotten (Score:2)
Change your name and you'll be instantly forgotten. What people who say they want a "right to be forgotten" is a right to control specific information about the: hide the bad, keep the good. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike a billboard google just displays the most common search terms, it's a statistical fact, not an endorsement.
It doesn't work that way. Suggestions are not based on what is statistically relevant or factual, they are based on what helps people find the information they are looking for. A few years back "lady gaga" suggested "lady gaga is a man", back when those rumours were flying. People were interested in that nonsense so that's what it offered to find for them.
So this is more like Google saying "I see you are interested in , perhaps you would like to know about their bankruptcy?"
Having said that I do agree with the rest of your post, I like the basic concept of the "right to be forgotten", I also think there should be some mechanism whereby a person can demand their name be removed from a commercial search index with no questions asked other than proof of identity. OTOH I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice with common names.
The EU's right to be forgotten wo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't Google seem to moderate themselves effectively? You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete
Exactly. And this should be a plain form, which you can fill out without having to get a google+ account, and without having to install boatloads of spyware onto your computer. When complaining about abuse, you shouldn't have to agree to more abuse...
Also, a manned e-mail address for general complaints and/or suggestions would help too. Currently, google is very hard to reach.
Yes, they probably would have many many mails sent to that address, due to their sheer size alone. But that same size should allow
Re: (Score:2)
A few things are relevant here. First, he did at one time go bankrupt. Yes, that was eventually annulled. However, it was at one time true and in the news and it was about him. Second, can he prove causation here? Correlation is easy to do, but is it actually Google's autocomplete, or is it just that he's been a public figure in all sorts of media because of the CoastJet business failing and he lost reputation because of that? How much customers is suing Google going to cost him? The Streisand effect is str
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino
no one is saying he went bankrupt, had a gambling problem, or is a bad doctor. all that is said is that if you're searching for his name, it's likely that you are searching about his bankruptcy issues. which is probably true, that's how google's auto-complete algorithm is meant to work, and i've personally found it to be quite accurate. the context is his name,
bankruptcy is within that context.
the guy is being punished needlessly.
he's not being punished. punishment is a negative reaction to something one does not like. honestly i really doubt most people at google even know who this guy is, let alone crafted this auto-complete to appear when his name was typed in, they don't have some ventedda against people that have gone bankrupt.
You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense.
making such a decision would mean that someone has specifically decided it is relevant. leaving it up to machine is fairer, tweaking the algorithm as such cases come up if required.
I don't know what the case here is, but if he did try to contact Google then I'm sure they ignored him completely as they are wont to do.
maybe next time i contact them and state whenever anyone types in the letter 'T' auto-completer should show 'The awesomeness of psiclops' you will complain when they ignore me? sometimes requests don't warrant an answer. if they got one such request a year, sure they should respond, thousands a day, considering his requests is invalid - probably not.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
True. being that this isn''t something google is trying to express.
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?
difficult question. in short my beliefs are that no they shouldnt be able to and at the same time, noone should be able to stop them from doing so. i realise these are contradictory, that's what happens when you you try and put everything into black and white.
What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
maliciouse intent.
Re: (Score:2)
If people bought the billboard space to declare you a pedophile, then Google should be allowed to report that. And if it's the most notable thing about you then it should also be part of autocomplete. Google just compiles information available on the internet. And people that use it expect that - it's a search engine. So if you don't like some of the information that is out there about you then tough for you. You should sue the guys that first made it available (if it was slander), not the people that archi
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
He obviously has too much money left and he wants to waste it on lawyers so that he can go bankrupt again...
Re: (Score:3)
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
..Potential employers searching my name would see info about another person with my name, assume it's me, and move on to the next applicant...
So, your future employers are all so stupid that they'd automatically assume that google's autocomplete refers "solely" to you? Why would you seek employment with such stupid people? All employers are stupid, right?
cheers,
Libel? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can it be libelous if it's true?
Re:Libel? (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
Re:Libel? (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
True. But bankruptcy rulings are public info in Australia. The bankruptcy is to protect you from your creditors, you cant do this the ruling is secret.
So,
Is Guy Hingston bankrupt = Yes
Is this public knowledge = Yes
Will this get thrown out of court = Yes
Ehm, not true (Score:2)
From what I understand, Guy Hingston has been declared bankrupt at some point in time. However, this has been annulled according to his lawyer. This means that "is Guy Hingston bankrupt = No" is the current situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Libel? (Score:5, Informative)
But he's suing in America which has even stronger free speech laws! Good luck with that!
Re: (Score:2)
and you spend your days wishing that you could have sex with a horse.
Just wishing? That does show a great lack of initiative.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not libel -- at least not in the U.S. Perhaps Australian law is different. In the U.S., libel has to be false.
Are there exceptions? I got the impression from a TV show (I know not a reliable source) that it was libellous to spread something in sealed juvenile records.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Libel? (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary leaves out that Hingston's bankruptcy was subsequently annulled.
Google is only reporting on the associated between "Hingston" and "bankrupt" because other people have made that association, either by typing it into Google, or by publishing it on sites that Google indexes. Personally, I think this sort of activity should be protected - "other people have typed "Hingston bankrupt" into Google" is a fact, regardless of whether Hingston is, or ever was, bankrupt.
Re:Libel? (Score:5, Funny)
He shouldn't complain. It's better than "Hingston mutant genetic sandwich"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
which I shall now start searching for.
Currently returns 1 hit - the parent comment. Let's keep it up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i've done my part. it's now got top two results leading to slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
A newspaper could quite easily use that principle to do front pages of "numerous reports that politician xyz secretly sacrifices goats to a pagan fertility goddess!".
A lie doesn't become true if it's repeated enough.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there actually are numerous reports. Newspapers do that all the time - the word they like to use is "alleged". Here you go [ibtimes.com] - "Berlusconi’s Alleged Ties To Mafia Again Resurface". Newspapers have been reporting on rumour for a long time. As long as they ensure that they're reporting on other people making the allegations, instead of making the allegations themselves, they're fine.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Suppose people type your name into Google, and the autosuggestion that comes up is:
{your name} masturbates to {your preferred} porn
It's true, so it can't be libelous right?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently)
Doesn't defamation generally require.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better idea (Score:3)
Rather than spending his money on lawyers he might be better off spamming Google with other autocompletes until it wipes out this one. Things like Guy Hingston, greatest surgeon ever! And Guy Hingston saves the planet from alien invasion! and Guy Hingston cures cancer and AIDS, saves baby seals!
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget: Guy Hingston thinks of the children!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Even better idea: get his name associated with porn, then google automatically disables auto-complete. (Try typing in the name of a porn star and you'll see.)
Seriously, he just needs to start a good free porn site with his name, put out some press releases, buy a few ads in the mainstream media, then everybody will google "Guy Hingston porn" and his problem will go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary Guy Hingston also bought a private jet plane. And then he went bankrupt. His money would be better spent on classes on financial responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
how about "Guy Hingston sues people he doesn't like - don't let him near you with sharp knives."
Is It Untrue? (Score:2)
It is only defamation if it is untrue. If Hingston had a business that went bankrupt and went bankrupt then where is the defamation?
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't, the bankruptcy was overturned.
Re:Is It Untrue? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.itsa.gov.au/dir228/itsaweb.nsf/docindex/Bankruptcy-%3EPersonal+Insolvency+Information-%3E5F.+Annulment [itsa.gov.au] What is annulment?
Annulment is the cancellation of a bankruptcy.
There are three ways a bankruptcy can be annulled:
* The creditors’ debts including interest and trustee’s fees and expenses are paid in full.
* Your creditors accept a composition or arrangement which is an offer of something less than payment in full.
* Application to the court in some limited circumstances.
Effects of annulment.
* Your annulment is recorded on the public record, the National Personal Insolvency Index (NPII) database, forever.
* Assets not needed by your trustee to pay your creditors, expenses and fees will be returned to you.
etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In England, we would call what you describe as "discharged" rather than "annulled". Annulled would be a declaration that he should have never been made bankrupt in the first place.
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-poor understanding of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
Algorithms are produced by people, and ultimately it is up to those people to manage its behavior. That's why they can't hide behind the shield of 'It's just an algoritm' in anti-trust cases. They have to demonstrate that the expected behavior of the algorithm is neutral towards competitors.
I'm not sure of the merit of the case based on Australian law, though it would set a dangerous precident. If you happen to share a name with somebody who has been accused of racist remarks, can you sue when autocomple
Re: (Score:2)
From a human point of view, his complaint has merit. I do not see why he should have to live with this just because it is an algorithm - whatever the legal terms.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally as a business owner would want to do business with whoever has money.
A problem which only keeps the stupid people from spending money at my business and can be seen through by smart people is still going to cost me cold cash.
It's the flip side of "I wouldn't want to work at a place that takes my Google search out of context"--I want to work at a place that pays me a salary so I can eat.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So... "Guy Hingston bankrupt" searches are manually entered a few times.
Now the the next few people who start to type in "Guy Hingston..." will see Google's algorithm auto-complete that with "...bankrupt"; it's likely that out of curiosity they will now search for those terms together. At this point from the algorithms point of view a "human" is searching for that complete set of terms, so the algorithm is reinforced to auto-complete "Guy Hingston..." with "...bankrupt" to more people...
It should be obviou
Re: (Score:2)
It's the responsibility of the creator of an algorithm to ensure that measures are taken to make sure it obeys the law. If someone creates a robotic hedge trimmer that then decides that people's necks also need trimming and runs amok, should the creator get away with it because it was down to his algorithm doing it automatically?
Re: (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:2)
Maybe he'd be better off paying for some news-worthy publicity for his surgery to alter his results, or contact the papers and have them revise their wording?
...yeah that won't eventually evolve into a tidy form of blackmail will it?
All your negative bullshit ends up in the search engines so that you'll be willing to pay for something positive to try to offset it all...
Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same time (Score:2)
As much as I hate to admit it, I find Google search's autocomplete very useful in two cases:
- To check someone's exact name. For instance, if I hear "this song is called "Baby I wawawawa" written by "Jim Wawawawa" on the radio, without catching the song's title or author completely, I can type "baby I Jim" and usually Google finds the answer before I type enter.
- To check spelling.
This said, I've also experienced the effect of having something stick to my name in the Google autocomplete. Fortunately it was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and to check which surgeons are bankrupt?
SEO gone wild (Score:5, Insightful)
As a surgeon, does he really think it's a good idea to replace the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete with "Guy Hingston lawsuit"?
Re:SEO gone wild (Score:5, Funny)
As a surgeon, does he really think it's a good idea to replace the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete with "Guy Hingston lawsuit"?
Well, bear in mind that this is a guy who's basically called up the national media and proclaimed, 'I Google myself!'
Are auto-complete results even useful? (Score:2)
it might be, but half the time it seems the auto complete script chokes and leaves me with a blank page, making the point of it moot, other times as I am typing I see exactly what I am looking for, then the page changes.
I lived fine with clicking a button, and I still have to click a button so whats the point?
bloated unwanted feature
Re: (Score:2)
oh I know exactly what to type for a purple unicorn rimjob without anal tearing
Let's help the poor guy! (Score:5, Funny)
OK, everybody, it's time to help him out here. Google for "Guy Hingston pumpkin fucker" until the association between Guy Hingston and bankrupt goes away!
Re: (Score:2)
Wanted to help the poor guy out.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking "Guy Hingston asshole" but know when someone has a better idea.
Re:Let's help the poor guy! (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, your post shows up as the first search result. Congrats!
I like auto complete (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There you were, trying to look impressive by implying that 50 words per minute is normal typing speed (it's actually faster than is required to be a certified typist) and telling us autocomplete is only for people who can't spell, but then...
Google's autocomplete appends an "s" when I type "it really help".
The amusing part... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd bet neither of those results were what he was hoping for.
Re:The amusing part... (Score:4, Informative)
"10. When an individual computer user types "Guy Hin
My compliments to his lawyer who resisted padding this out to 30 pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With any luck, the 'bankrupt' articles will now lead to the controversy, at least giving him a fig leaf of cover for his humiliation.
Auto-complete (Score:2)
The short answer? (Score:2)
Are auto-complete results even useful?
No and it's fucking annoying. I have it disabled and my proxy filter set to ensure it stays that way. I'll submit my search query when I'm damn good and ready.
Re: (Score:2)
In Chrome, auto-complete also auto-completes URL's, which works quite well.
The search results are almost never useful and I often have to edit the search query instead of it just searching what I want to type.
If I type "git" and press enter, I want to search for "git". I understand "gitlab" is also quite relevant, but I didn't type "gitlab", I typed "git" and pressed enter.
It's great for auto-complete to offer alternatives, it's quite a different thing for it to overrule what I'm typing while I'm typing.
Tell google about your password! (Score:3)
My favorite thing about autocomplete is all the times I've typed something in the box I didn't mean to, or pasted something when the wrong thing was in my paste buffer. The autocomplete logs have got to be a goldmine of private individual data, and confidential corporate data.
This guy's never heard of the Streisand Effect (Score:2)
The fact that he's suing Google for putting "bankrupt" in the autocomplete virtually ensures the words are permanantly linked together now that the news everywhere is reporting that Google put "bankrupt" in the autocom... (cue infinite loop). And now not just on Google, but also on Bing, Yahoo and pretty much every other search engine that didn't previously put "bankrupt" next to his name.
What an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiot.
Not if the aim of the suit is to get Google to pay him compensation, then the more bad press about him, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Is auto-complete useful? Let's ask Google. (Score:2)
"Are auto-complete results even useful?"
Well, let's ask Google. [vortexcortex.com]
...
Autocomplete is:
Autocomplete is not a function
Autocomplete is not working
Autocomplete is not working in outlook 2010
I'm afraid I have to agree with Google on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
The topmost choice when typing "autocomplete" is "autocomplete off". What does that tell us?
Maybe Google should (Score:2)
Oh Google you... (Score:2)
Google just wants to be helpful. In fact when I joined Google+, it asked me if I wanted to add my ex wife! (no)
And when I search for a raccoon knit hat for my daughter's birthday, I get to see that ad on every website I visit for the next month! (argh)
I don't know about you, Google is super helpful! /s
Defamation? (Score:2)
It isn't defamation if it's true. Good luck in court.
Our thinking has become autocomplete (Score:2)
He'll get so screwed by Google's attorney fees (Score:2)
that he'll go bankru---
oh.
Attacking the wrong problem (Score:2)
He was bankrupt. It is public knowledge. Therefore this association exists. The inference that he is still bankrupt, or that the past status of bankruptcy should have any bearing on one's desire to engage him outright, is the problem. Google is not the problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it useful when doing input on a phone. Most of the stuff I am looking for on the fly like that is listed.