We all start searches at Google and get the autocomplete function going into full effect, giving us suggestions as we type each letter. Apparently one Hong Kong tycoon did not like the results the autocomplete suggested when it came to him. He wants to sue Google for defamation and a Hong Kong court has ruled he can go right ahead and do just that.
The South China Morning Post wrote:
A Hong Kong court has ruled that a local entertainment tycoon can go ahead with his defamation lawsuit against Google, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the global technology giant’s search engine.
Albert Yeung Sau-sing, the founder of a company which manages some of Hong Kong’s most famous celebrities, wants to sue Google because the “autocomplete” function of its search engine links him to the city’s notorious triad gangs.
When users type “Albert Yeung Sau-sing” in English or Chinese into the search engine, Google automatically suggests related search terms such as “triad”, “Sun Yee On” and “14K” – the names of triad gangs.
Yeung wants a court to order Google to remove the “defamatory” suggestions and to pay him compensation.
Google’s Take
But Google’s lawyer, Gerard McCoy SC, warned that “the entire basis of the internet will be compromised” if search engines were required to “audit” what could be accessed by internet users, a task he said was an “infinite duty” and “should not be foisted on Google”.
He said Google adopted “an algorithmic based approach that requires no human input, operation and/or manipulation in the search processes for the results to appear”.
Google was “a mere passive facilitator within a legal safe harbour”, McCoy argued.
Read the full article here
Google’s right on this.
So it seems to me, anyway.
Joseph Peterson — if it is you, what would you do?
So is google right if this happens to you or to your wife or one of your kids?
I would accept that search algorithms spontaneously create all sorts of juxtapositions — both in SERPs and in other formats such as auto-complete.
Some juxtapositions are flattering. That is, after all, what SEO and SEM are all about — paying to be associated with some query phrase. Most juxtapositions are coincidental and neutral. But random chance allows for the possibility of unflattering pairings.
In order to boost relevance, Google looks at user search habits and tries to anticipate what they’ll want to find. This is a question of broad statistical procedures rather than manual pairings, for the most part; and it’s unquestionably very useful for search efficiency overall.
You may think of people’s search habits as cutting swaths of bare earth across a lawn. Cumultatively, those searches by individuals create pathways for Google to make use of when presenting SERPs or auto-complete suggestions.
So if someone appears unflatteringly juxtaposed with a person or topic he resents, it’s most likely either a random accident of broader processes or else a reflection of human patterns in search that tend (for whatever reason) to link him and that offensive topic.
Google, or any search engine, must generate a vast quantity of data interlinkages in order to produce SERPs or auto-complete suggestions with any relevance. This is done by computer for a reason. It’s simply too vast a quantity of information for humans to gather. By the same token, it’s too vast for human employees at Google to police. Even if they could anticipate what juxtapositions would offend which individuals from this multilingual, multicultural, international world of ours, Google employees simply couldn’t monitor for these things in advance.
Having a mechanism for removing these juxtapositions upon complaint might turn out to be a good policy for Google, although it has its drawbacks regarding free speech. But surely making a search engine liable for chance juxtapositions imposes an unrealistic burden.
Now, if it could be proved that Google were manually adjusting auto-complete or SERPs in order to defame someone, then that would be something else entirely. I doubt that’s what happened here. That said, Google certainly has the power to do this; and nobody can prove they do it even if they do.
“Now, if it could be proved that Google were manually adjusting auto-complete or SERPs in order to defame someone, then that would be something else entirely. I doubt that’s what happened here. That said, Google certainly has the power to do this; and nobody can prove they do it even if they do”.
@Peterson,
I believe we CAN start by agreeing that Google is NOT populated by angels. Yes? Thank you.
That being the case, the logic of valid argument, and rule of inference, apply to them, as they do to you and me (e.g the law of contrapositive, propositional logic, modus tollens blah blah blah which could validate certain inferences made by the Tycoon), In short, Google is subject to valid argument form, and rule of inference, just as any of us. Particularly, Evidence of absence in general, for example, such as evidence that there is no CVCV domain in a certain portfolio. Tht is a proper evidence, and logic. This, if you accept it, should nudge you along…
Inability to disprove, does not prove.
http://www.gibsonssolicitors.com.au/Google-Defamation-Case.php#.U-MJCGNUHw0
There have been a couple cases where Google has been held liable for defamation due to the results of autocomplete
Raymond ?
jeff schneider
Independent Marketing Analyst/Strategist at UseBiz.com / (.COM ) URL Centric Marketing
Autocomplete is purely and simply a case of manipulating Digital Routing Code. Google needs to stop these anticompetitive practices.Googles present practice, of manipulating Digital Routing Code will increase exponentially with their GTLD participation.
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger) (Domain Master)