Yes, and yes; and triply-yes if it's a DMCA theory that alleges that linking to a page containing allegedly infringing material also constitutes infringement.

Information does not cause damage, people do. Surely the onus must be on the people who use the information to cause damage? For example, those in the article who chose to not do business with the Montrealer because of the invalid information they leveraged. They caused the damage claimed in court. Why is Google responsible for their poor judgement?

> are you also opposed to DMCA takedowns?

If you stand by takedowns, why prefer removal of a link over the source material? Surely once the actual content goes away so too will the link? If the content is still out there, it will still be found, if not by Google, by some other means.

What if the website containing harmful content is hosted on a Russian server that ignores DMCA takedowns and there is no way to remove it?

What if the majority of traffic to that website comes from Google, should Google not take any responsibility for promoting that content? Or should Google take proactive measures to prevent harm, even if they are not the source of the content?

Meaning, should Google babysit people with occasional poor judgement? After all, if people always acted rationally with a clear head information would be completely innocuous. But, indeed, there will always be some crazies out there.

In a similar vein, does a hammer manufacturer have the responsibility to babysit the occasional person who will use a hammer to bludgeon another to death? I say no. The is no intent by the manufacturer to see bludgeoning carried out. If the user of a tool uses poor judgement, that's on them.

We don't go after the Ford Motor Company every time someone gets a speeding ticket while driving a Ford, so what is special about Google?

How does person X defaming person Y indicate that person Y has poor judgement?

Do you think that no one ever posts lies on the internet?

Irrational people can, and do, reach for a lie and, out of poor judgement, create harm. But the poor judgement is the problem, not the lie, hammer, or car. The latter three do not act. If people were infallible the existence of the lie would mean nothing as it could not possibly lead to harm.

Of course, people are not infallible and harm will be created. The onus being placed on the party causing harm, not those who made commonly used tools available to the party at fault is recognized everywhere else. What is special about Google?

This is so patently false I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion.

There are so many very obvious ways that information, especially false information, can cause demonstrable, material harm that I cannot view this argument as anything other than ideological dogma with no basis in reality.

Like what? Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that this website containing inflammatory information was never found by another person. What harm would the information cause? The answer is that it wouldn't cause any harm. How could it?

Not even the court case tried to make this claim. It claimed the harm was caused by the poor judgment of people in the man's life.

Or "I didn't hurt those people; all I did was open the valve on the chlorine gas canister! It was their own breathing that hurt them!"

> Not even the court case tried to make this claim. It claimed the harm was caused by the poor judgment of people in the man's life.

You're going to have to provide specific quotes, because reading the article, I can't see anything that looks remotely like what you say here.

Why? What's the incentive? It affects me in no way if you missed something, or you don't believe me, or whatever it is that prompted this request. I find enjoyment in writing down my own neural activity, but there is nothing exciting about copying/pasting someone else's.

> I can't see anything that looks remotely like what you say here.

What did you see? What harm do you think was caused? The article I read said that the man was harmed by having people disassociate with him. Not the lie disassociating with him, people disassociating with him. Those people exhibited poor judgment in their willingness to harm another person and, if the the courts determine the harm is worthy of legal reprieve, why are the people making those poor decisions not who were penalized for their actions? Why is their stupidity Google's responsibility?

"I didn't know not to harm this man. A computer I was using said it was okay! It must be the computer's fault." should not be a sufficient argument in a court of law. But here we are.

Like what? I'm going to write a lie on a piece of paper and seal it in a safe which no person can access. Is it going to break free and kill us all? Or what harm should we expect from it?

Back to reality, it won't cause any harm. If someone with poor judgment found a way into the safe, read the lie, and then did something stupid, that could result in harm. But it would be the person doing something stupid that caused the harm.

Even the court case was clear that the harm caused was in people making poor decisions after reading the lie, not the lie itself. Why are the people who caused the harm claimed in the case not held responsible for their poor judgment? What is special about Google that it gets to take responsibility for unrelated people doing something stupid?

Fortunately in this case the harm caused by those people was limited, but if the harm was greater, like someone murdered the guy after reading the lie, would it be reasonable to charge Google with murder and absolve the murderer of responsibility?

Your example with the safe is obviously absurd. No one is suggesting that the mere existence of untrue information, in a vacuum, causes harm. Communicating it to people, presented as true information, is where the harm comes.

If you tell someone there are no peanuts in their meal, and they have a peanut allergy, they will eat it because of your false assurance and be harmed.

If you tell someone the car dealership down the street always gives amazing deals and gives lifetime warranties for free, but they're selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, your endorsement of their lies can entice more people into getting swindled by them.

If you tell someone the car dealership down the street is selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, when in reality they give good deals and honor their warranties faithfully, you are driving away business from them, which harms them financially.

"I didn't harm the person with the peanut allergy; the peanuts did!" Bullshit. They ate it in this scenario specifically because they trusted your assurance that it was safe.

"I didn't harm the people who got swindled; the car dealership did!" You both harmed them. Your false statements gave them extra legitimacy. Plus, the lies of the car dealership itself caused harm here.

"I didn't harm the car dealership; the people who didn't go there did!" Bullshit. You gratuitously introduced false information into a system where it didn't otherwise exist, defaming the car dealership and causing it to lose business that would otherwise have supported it financially.

I think that should be sufficient, since you're making an absolute, categorical claim, meaning that any nontrivial counterexample refutes it.

The harm here is in the act of serving peanuts to someone who is known to have an allergy, not the lie. You can say there are no peanuts and then briskly take back the food before consumption, replacing it with a peanut-free alternative. Nobody would be harmed in that scenario, even with the exact same lie told. The lie is not where the harm is found.

> If you tell someone the car dealership down the street always gives amazing deals and gives lifetime warranties for free, but they're selling lemons and fraudulent warranties, your endorsement of their lies can entice more people into getting swindled by them.

Slightly closer, but still misses the mark. You are only harming yourself by acting on the lie.

With respect to what we are actually talking about, there are four parties:

1. Someone who told a lie.

2. Someone who perpetuated a lie.

3. Someone who caused harm after encountering the lie perpetuated.

4. Someone who was harmed by the person causing harm.

If you tell me that the cars at the dealership down the street are free, all you have to do is ask for a test-drive and never come back! And if I tell someone else and if that someone else follows through: Harm will ensue from the theft. But why am I, #2 on the list, who did nothing but repeat what I heard, the one going to court on theft charges?

Even if you want to say I am an accessory and should be punished for that, why do I have to take the entire brunt of it? Why do #1 and #3 get off scot free?

We used to say ignorance is no excuse, but it seems you are saying that ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse. We used to believe that one should know not to cause harm to others even when there is lie trying to justify it. What happened?

Because it's often impossible. Different jurisdiction or hosting services not complying with the request.