> There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent.
Yes, this sounds bad for the internet in many ways. One recent particular case comes to mind of this guy who is suing Encyclopedia Dramatica (a 4-chan style wiki with a satirical and intentionally humorous backstory for most internet memes). The banner on top of their site asking for donations for a legal battle now says:
>> "JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. "
This is a guy who had a profile on the wiki because he was internet famous setting up a fake dating site while a student at MIT in order to get preference to message all girls who signed up. He was investigated for harassing girls. http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-o...
This just offers people like him another outlet to waste peoples time in court.
But in practice the Streisand Effect has the opposite effect of actually helping him protect his name so I really wonder what practical benefits this really provides anyone.
It seems like there are far more illegitimate reasons for this to be used than good ones. And considering there is no automated way to filter these I'm much more inclined to say there should NOT be a centrally controlled way to remove things from being listed on Google in this way.
Even with this particular court case if a business moves away or shuts down then Google's algorithms will eventually downgrade the ranking of the companies presence online in relation to that location. If they want a global presence then it's up to them to outrank other sites by getting press or for Google to properly flesh out the better sites.
This is a problem that is obviously better solved by Google's engineers than the courts.
Yes, this sounds bad for the internet in many ways. One recent particular case comes to mind of this guy who is suing Encyclopedia Dramatica (a 4-chan style wiki with a satirical and intentionally humorous backstory for most internet memes). The banner on top of their site asking for donations for a legal battle now says:
>> "JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. "
SLAPP = https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public...
This is a guy who had a profile on the wiki because he was internet famous setting up a fake dating site while a student at MIT in order to get preference to message all girls who signed up. He was investigated for harassing girls. http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-o...
He's also a known lawsuit troll who is trying to repair his name in search engines via DMCA claims and lawsuits. He has also sued online commenters who spoke ill about him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonat...
More about the latest lawsuit here: http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-o...
This just offers people like him another outlet to waste peoples time in court.
But in practice the Streisand Effect has the opposite effect of actually helping him protect his name so I really wonder what practical benefits this really provides anyone.
It seems like there are far more illegitimate reasons for this to be used than good ones. And considering there is no automated way to filter these I'm much more inclined to say there should NOT be a centrally controlled way to remove things from being listed on Google in this way.
Even with this particular court case if a business moves away or shuts down then Google's algorithms will eventually downgrade the ranking of the companies presence online in relation to that location. If they want a global presence then it's up to them to outrank other sites by getting press or for Google to properly flesh out the better sites.
This is a problem that is obviously better solved by Google's engineers than the courts.