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.
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.