Slashdot Mirror
First Amendment Protection For Search Results?
An anonymous reader writes "A legal paper (PDF), commissioned by Google and written by Eugene Volokh and Donald Falk, makes the case that search results should be protected under the First Amendment, thereby making regulation of search results illegal. The authors say a search engine 'uses sophisticated computerized algorithms, but those algorithms themselves inherently incorporate the search engine company engineers' judgments about what material users are likely to find responsive to these queries.' Cory Doctorow's reaction: 'I think that the editorial right to exercise judgment is much more widely understood than the sacred infallibility of robotic sorting. I certainly support it more. But I wonder if Google appreciates that it will now have to confront people who are angry about their search rankings by saying, "I'm sorry, we just don't like you very much" instead of "I'm sorry, our equations put you where you belong." And oy, the libel headaches they're going to face.'"
Is this the final legacy of Eric Schmidt, by any chance? Upset about being push aside, he's approving this kind of Google killing strategy?
The notion that an elected set of representatives would create a baseline secret test to check google's results is an excellent and needed one. a light weight check process could be easily designed and periodically launched to *measure* the results.
Likewise, all products gain from consistent quality measurements.
On top of that, Google themselves is silencing the release of research paper about Google+ and social networks. Talk about hypocrisy!
Google blocked me from publishing my book
Many of you have asked me why my book ‘Social Circles‘ was delayed, and why it has been removed from Amazon. I wrote the book in collaboration with Google, and in June 2010 they officially gave me written permission to publish it. The book content, the title, and the cover all existed prior to Emerald Sea (Google+). However, after the PR frenzy around the leaking of the project in July 2010, Google verbally rescinded permission to publish, and blocked me from publishing until after Google+ launched. I understood and respected their decision at the time. However, they continue to block it. Now that Google+ has launched, I honestly can’t see why they don’t respond to my emails requesting permission to publish. The book contains no proprietary information, it is based almost entirely on research from 3rd parties (mostly universities) and any Google research referenced is already in the public domain.
Of course, while the paper is published by "independent" source, Google has commissioned it for less than honest purposes:
Google commissioned the paper, presumably to help ward off calls for government regulation of its search results.
As noted previously, Google has come under TONS of scrutiny from different governments and several U.S. government agencies. They have used their monopoly to illegally promote their own other services, all hidden behind the old "but it is just our algorithms at works!".
As Google is maintaining strict editorial process of the search queries, I think it would be good to hold them to responsibilities for them too. Google has shown that they can remove content from their service. Just like newspapers aren't allowed to show illegal things, Google should not be either. If Google has a problem with this, they need to stop manually deciding what's good for people and use an algorithm that is actually fair and isn't biased.
This seems to weaken their "algorithmically neutral" defense against antitrust scrutiny regarding the placement of Google services on the search results page. Perhaps they're testing the waters for abandoning that position in favor of this one, sidestepping antitrust charges entirely by citing free speech protection. I'm not sure governments would find that convincing, especially the EU. Honestly, if Google toned down the pushing of Google+ and other services in search results (or included clearly relevant results like Twitter and Facebook), they'd probably be in less hot water, but they seem to feel they have no other way to compete with social networking.
Niggers, niggers, niggers. I haaaaaaate niggers!
This frist pst is protected by the first amendment!
The search terms themselves should also be protected, no?
Once a search engine becomes any more advanced than the grep tool, there are algorithms involved to quantify relevance that make the results subjective.
It's also worth considering that the primary cause of censored search results in the world is DMCA takedown notices.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I just searched "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Am I ok?
It is well-established that commercial speech is protected under the first amendment. There are limits to that protection--it is not as protected as core political speech by individuals--but it is protected.
Look up the Virginia Pharmacy Board case.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Just pick a damn account and stick with it will you?
We already know you are fucking shill, it doesn't matter which username you use, your posts let us know it's you. We know you hate Google and you have a molded copy of Steve Jobs dick up your ass.
Goatse is more acceptable than your posts since that is at least based in reality.
He seems to think that pretty much all expression should have First Amendment protection. It's almost as if he takes that "inalienable rights" and "Congress shall make no law" stuff seriously.
Actually, they get it both ways.
If it is protected speech, then the gov't can't shut them down.
But when someone sues them for libel (or the like), they can equally claim that their search results are their opinion, which they are entitled to express, and not facts, which could be subject to dispute. As it happens, there has already been a case just like that. In their response, Google said something along the lines of
In that case, Google prevailed.
This piece may be a reaction to the "Google Suggest" lawsuits in France.
Google has been sued several times in France because of Google Suggest.
1. Google your name. If you're actually a crook, Google Suggest results will expose you as such.
2. Sue Google for defamation.
3. Profit!
French courts have repeatedly sided against Google and with the crooks, err victims.
Which shows how much such a provision is needed.
This is yet another first post with a pre-made piece of anti-google propaganda that the marketing company behind bonch continuously floods slashdot with.
If you don't like corporate shills manipulating discussions then mod down bonch and other sock puppet accounts controlled by teh same people. It's teh difference between reading honest discussions and being forced-fed marketing bullshit by corporations such as apple and microsoft.
See:
http://www.waggeneredstrom.com
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/pr_contacts.mspx
I don't see how it's any different than Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc. that do reviews of products. Sure, there are companies that might object to the final results and rankings especially when they have crappy products, but the bottom line is that these product review are protected by their authors' First Amendment rights. The only time libel might be involved is if they produced reviews without any factual basis. Google does have a factual basis for their search results - their ranking algorithms, which attempt to figure out for what a person is truly searching. And it's in there best interest to keep it that way, else people move on to another search engine.
It's fifth account like this in less than 12 hours. It's like they want to DDoS the /. users table or something.
Also, check this out: two first posts with the same timestamp as this article from two fresh accounts.
"Congress shall make no law"
"Shall not be infringed"
"The accused shall enjoy the right"
Mere suggestions, to be ignored at the convencience of the state.
have you ever considered that maybe multiple people happen to share the same opinion? and that just maybe those people could disagree with you
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
People want to hear a "there is no censorship" story but they actually want stff censored. It just forces censorship groups to hide. Since there will be censorship of "obvious" offenses, pedophiles, terror, drugs, weapons, personal data, etc, I think the debate is really about what censorship policies, controls, people, etc do we want. Who gets to be the censor, and how are they chosen?
This was my idea. I'm glad it bore fruit.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'm glad to see HTC is using them too. It explains the pro-android messages here. Damn shills..