ViruRulez Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Doesn't surprise me. Does it surprise you? My whole discussion was around how Google rips off money from everyone and claims innocence. They do not build a single content. News for example. They will put news from BBC, CNN, Reuters and pass it as their own. And make money in the process too for somebody else's hardwork. But when caught in a spot they shrug their shoulders with - Ummm dont blame me, Internet is so vast. I am not on board with that atitude, you may very well be :agree: Sorry but that is pure BS. The other points are also BS but I do not have time to discuss right now. Regarding the news etc. the news agencies have rights to remove their news from Google News and it has never been forbidden. Secondly, most of the news websites links are provided but news as a whole is not provided by Google. Only AP/Associate Press news appears directly inside Google News. Thirdly, all those news agencies use Google ads more often than not. So, pure BS argument. Google makes profit and I also agree a bit with their monopoly. But that is because people support and use Google and not anything else. Moreover, Google works the most to maintain the quality of results in its search engine compared to anyone else.
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Lurker, actually your point about Google making money without having done anything is irrelevant to this issue. Google has a right to make money without having to do anything. They can make money thru their innovative marketing and business strategies. I see absolutely nothing wrong in Google making money the way they are and that has no relevance to this case. Just coz you are earning money thru your own innovative business practices does not mean you are liable for others' offenses. If Google, and I dunno the technicalities involved here, is hosting such content with control over it then it is definitely liable. I will also say that Google can block an entire site (if practical) provided the site itself is an offensive site. However I don't see any reason to hold Google responsible for what an individual has posted on some site. Consider the following example - Someone searches "Sachin Tendulkar stats" in Google. Google throws up results. One of the results leads to ICF, specifically a post by someone where Sachin's parentage has been questioned or simply that he has been abused left, right, center by the poster. How on earth is Google responsible for it? Google makes money when ppl click on the results shown and go to ICF because that is Google's business model. And they have every right to make money from their business model. It is not against the law, if anything it is a bloody innovative strategy to make money. Now suppose ICF was actually a site dedicated to abusing Sachin Tendulkar then Google can take a stand and say that "ICF, you are way too derogatory and hence we will not include your site in any search results and we want nothing to do with you". That is the max Google can do. But, as you can see, not all these sites are bigot sites thru identity. It is individuals who post on the site that are to be blamed. Since what gets posted on ICF is under the control of ICF they should be held accountable and not Google even if Google makes money from clicks made to ICF thru it's main search site. Does it make sense? And if you still want Google to be responsible then will you allow Google to direct ICF what can be posted and what cannot be on ICF's site? That would be ridiculous
akshayxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: at... Google rips money off people! Google does not do anything!! Google has a monopoly!!! .... I don't even feel the need to explain and spoil the blissful state of ignorance.
bihutoli Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Its a highly impractical demand. How do you filter objectionable images? The high court judge should have his sanity examined. Rather than try and control availability of offensive content in the internet, the government should spend resources educating people not to get their chaddies in a twist every time somebody posts something that offends their sensitive self.
Recommended Posts