Reply to post: Re: It's all Google's fault

Blind justice: Google lawsuit silences elected state prosecutor

sed gawk Bronze badge

Re: It's all Google's fault

This translates as "Google continued to do its job as a search engine." If many people enter those search terms in the land of the free, then they ought to be thrown up by autocomplete.

Your argument suggests that where technical quality is in conflict with the law, that the law should be made to yield. That's not a level playing field, it's flagrant disregard of the law, and if you try it, chances are your feet won't touch the ground.

And the correct answer is that they shouldn't have rolled over to those governments in the first place, although they didn't have much choice. Of course, now we're in a situation where every Tom, Dick and Harry with an ounce of political power thinks they should be able to get Google to manipulate search results to serve whatever hot issue they think will get them some votes. Or sue them for some of their supposedly bottomless funds.

Again they should comply with the law, it's a business, and complying with the law in all its insane glory is the cost of doing business.

We really need to get past this whole idea that the solution to every problem is "make Google fix it".

Are you for real ? Oh poor 300 billion dollar corporation, complying with the law should be optional for delicate little flowers like Google.

Piracy and copyright violations? Google's fault.

Google make money by serving adverts next to content, that means they can choose not to serve a particular market, if it requires they break the law, just like everybody else.

Kiddie porn? Googles fault. People want to buy prescription drugs? Google's to blame.

Google publish a list of links, they absolutely are responsible for what makes it on to *their* list. They make money by placing adverts next to content, some of that money will come from objectionable sources, and where it's flat out criminal, they should censor the list and leave the money from putting an advert next to kiddy porn on the table.

Somebody broke the law, and now their reputation is damaged. Oh look, it's Google's fault. Give it a rest already.

You don't seem to get how the law works, we as the public get to comply, that's basically the deal. Rightly or wrongly, there is a law which (personally I think is a bit pointless, but nonetheless) requires Search Engines to censor the list for particular keywords, again compliance is not optional for everyone else.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019