13 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
13 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Google going to be forced to police comments?

by PerformanceMan
11 replies
Case involving Blogger.com could cause Google to have to police all online comments.

Imagine how much this would change the concept of 'user generated content!'

What do you think will be the outcome of this?
#comments #forced #google #police
  • Profile picture of the author J Gibson
    Originally Posted by PerformanceMan View Post

    Case involving Blogger.com could cause Google to have to police all online comments.

    Imagine how much this would change the concept of 'user generated content!'

    What do you think will be the outcome of this?
    There would really be no reason for such a policy to be introduced. It benefits nobody. It would just force Google to close down it's Blogger service (as policing all comments would make the service completely unprofitable), which could provoke job losses and further hurt.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7739375].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joshua Rigley
      Banned
      Originally Posted by GibsonTM View Post

      There would really be no reason for such a policy to be introduced. It benefits nobody. It would just force Google to close down it's Blogger service (as policing all comments would make the service completely unprofitable), which could provoke job losses and further hurt.
      I agree. Even a company like Google can't police all of the posts/comments made on their Blogger platform. It just isn't logistically possible.

      I don't use blogger personally, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7739393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author butters
        If he was to win and Google did have to police comments (Which is stupid) it would only be enforceable in the UK, since, this is a UK related case.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7739431].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tony Marriott
          Bear in mind that if it was found that Google was responsible for the content of a blogger blog then why not WordPress.com, Squidoo, facebook,Twitter, in fact any hosting company like Hostgator or Bluehost.

          If there are any changes from this or any similar cases I would hazard a guess that it will be dealt with in the same way as copyright material.

          I.e. the major "hosts" are protected against any kind of prosecution based on an agreement and implementation of a "take down" system.

          If there is content that someone disputes then they can report it. Google (or whatever host) will be required to "take down" the content in a reasonable timescale. The original author will have the right to appeal it and prove his case.
          Not sure how he would do that but that's the principle.

          Note: Personal pinion not legal opinion
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7739644].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
          Originally Posted by butters View Post

          If he was to win and Google did have to police comments (Which is stupid) it would only be enforceable in the UK, since, this is a UK related case.
          About 12 years ago, when I looked into this and other issues of this type, including spending about $15k on legal advice, I went away with the understanding that under uk law as it then stood, the publisher is potentially liable for defamation in user content. I am not a lawyer, so I may have misunderstood, and the law may have changed since then, but that was and is my understanding.

          The publisher is the entity who operates the site, probably not the web host, but I don't really know for sure. I'd imagine newspaper is responsible for both their own content and comments they publish (I understand they are when talking about printed newspapers) but their computer service provider or printing press supplier isn't.

          For google it is not a serious issue, they don't have to police the comments. If they lose a lawsuit for 500k once every year or two, it is a drop in the ocean to them.

          On the other hand for a small publisher this is a huge issue that could bankrupt you.

          The only way to avoid the reach of uk law, my understanding, is to make sure your site is neither hosted nor read in the uk (since courts have ruled that when a web server sends the page to a user's browser this is republishing at the end-user's location).

          If you want to fix this kind of nonsense Libel Reform Campaign - Free Speech Is Not For Sale
          Signature
          ClickBank Vendor?
          - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
          - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
          - Killer Graphics for Your Site
          SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7739713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andy Fletcher
    The article says that the high court found they shouldn't have to police such content. Merely that they have an obligation to remove it in a timely fashion when complaints are filed.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7739822].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Did anyone read the entire article, or just the titillating headline intended to draw in readers?

      Google won the case. No liability. No obligation to police comments.

      The plaintiff, law student (which says a lot) Payam Tamiz will likely have an upcoming appearance in bankruptcy court after being ordered to pay Google's legal expenses.

      .
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7740081].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author onSubie
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        Did anyone read the entire article, or just the titillating headline intended to draw in readers?

        Google won the case. No liability. No obligation to police comments.

        The plaintiff, law student (which says a lot) Payam Tamiz will likely have an upcoming appearance in bankruptcy court after being ordered to pay Google's legal expenses.
        I was curious about all the "sky is falling" talk too when this short passage explains things pretty clearly:

        Mr Tamiz's plea that Google was a primary publisher of the smears was rejected as 'misplaced' by the judge, who said it only operates as a 'facilitator', enabling other people to express their views.

        Google could not be compared to an author or editor and the judge said he was also 'very doubtful' that it could be viewed as a 'secondary publisher', in a similar way to a libellous article 'distributor'.

        However, the judge went on to rule that Google and others do have a responsibility to remove offending material from their sites within a reasonable time of a complaint of libel being received.

        This is no different than YouTube (or other sites) being required to remove copyright or offending material on request by the owner, without assuming any liability.

        I have no idea what the headline was wailing about....
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7740107].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author redarrows
    It interesting but Google wont worry.

    Google already setup a huge business in central London in kings cross starting this year,
    The way things are with London keep going down the pan financially and any judge knows we need help getting loads off people in work in the uk i can not see much done even if Google is found guilty.

    there no way any politician or business man want to offend there future investments in london.

    how i fill about it, will justice really be served?

    john.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7740074].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author carldavies33
    No, I don't agree in Google doing that. Why would they close down blogger.com just much money in it for them. Nothing to worry about
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7740118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PerformanceMan
    "The Daily Mail" is the King of catchy headlines

    As most people stated in this thread, removing the 'Safe Harbor' provision would pretty much kill all web hosts and ISPs as well as many, many websites.

    This basic loophole is how 'revenge websites' have been able to stay open - although some of them are being challenged in court too.

    In theory you can open a website up to users - have them upload whatever they want and then deny it was your fault. That's okay. But if someone can say you're encouraging the uploads or comments or whatever they can still come after you - like with MegaUpload.

    I'm sure someone is going to come along and try and regulate these areas more at some point.
    Signature
    Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7740168].message }}

Trending Topics