Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Yep. And keep in mind that Google can't just sit back and wait for a court to order something removed; Google has to pay Google employees to imitate these court precedents.


sort by: page size:

Yep.

I doubt not Google has a very competent legal team.


Yes, google can’t immitate the courts. So they just have to honor the request. Besidde people heavily intetsted Nopone gests hurt g

No, Google has the right to fight each such request in court.

Yes. Google is violating practically every law of this type. They're allowed to do it because they have a lot of money.

I don't know how the justice in US works, but I do think precedents matter there. Is it possible for others to sue Google using this case as an legal argument?

I think the presence of court cases, frivolous or not, is completely orthogonal to Google's content moderation policies. An appeal to "this is pending in court" is a deeply unprincipled argument; plenty of things that a court would certainly countenance are forbidden by Google's policies.

Great. Now we're gonna see Google take down even more stuff just because it might possibly end up involved in some court case that they get fined over.

Any realistic attempt at a lawsuit here would start with a request for injunction to force Google to temporarily remove this feature.

We are not talking about an ordinary situation. We’re talking about a situation where Google has been placed under a retention order because of a lawsuit.

This is not gonna work out well for Google at all because this kind of BS really pisses judges off and also looks really bad to juries if it makes it that far.


I bet Google will pull some of their lawyers on this. The precedent that will be set by cases like this is pretty important for their technology especially while it's in its infancy.

The legal department of Google is probably doing that to avoid a second court decision, targetting them directly.

Doesn't Google go after people for doing the same thing?

Google has already appealed this.

I imagine the Supreme Court will probably rule on this case. I’m not looking forward to whatever boneheaded precedent they’ll set in the process.


Google has lawyers.

isn't Google covered by precedents, or at least their terms of service?

They could also sue Google for this violation.

You're right and it makes sense but how is someone like Google supposed to handle these requests case by case? Or are they supposed to hire an army of lawyers and send thousands of requests to be decided by the courts?

Google does this all the time, has been sued a few times, and has yet to lose.

I wonder how long it is before Google is fighting the precedent they set in this case.
next

Legal | privacy