# Has Google invented algorithmic libel? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398 "2012-09-21T14:55:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/1 "2012-09-21T14:55:57Z")
That’s the charge in a [suit filed by Bettina Wulff](http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/google-autocomplete-former-german-first-lady-defamation-case-a-856820.html), the former German first lady who is alleged to have been a prostitute in the distant past: > [@](#): > > It’s pure service-mindedness, but for Bettina Wulff it’s a nightmare. The wife of former German President Christian Wulff wants the search engine to cease suggesting terms that she finds defamatory. This has nothing to do with the search results, but rather with the recommendations made by Google’s “Autocomplete” function, a service that is also offered by competitors like Bing and Yahoo. All one has to do is type her first name and the first letter of her last name to get search suggestions such as “Bettina Wulff prostitute,” “Bettina Wulff escort” and “Bettina Wulff red-light district.” > > Google acts as if all this were unavoidable. “The search terms in Google Autocomplete reflect the actual search terms of all users,” says a company spokesman. He also spoke of the “algorithmic result of several objective factors, including the popularity of search terms,” which sounds far more complex and typically vague, but basically amounts to the same shoulder-shrugging response: One cannot accuse an automatic mechanism of defamation. The company maintains that the search engine only shows what exists. It’s not its fault, argues Google, if someone doesn’t like the computed results. I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, Google really is just aggregating the search terms associated with what you type in and showing the most popular results. If other people are searching for something, how can reporting that be libel? On the other hand, there is a feedback mechanism at play–popular searches become more popular with autocomplete–and people can use this feature to spread unsavory rumors, just like in the classic [Google bombs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb). Does Google bear any sort of responsibility for enabling that sort of behavior? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/2 "2012-09-21T15:03:43Z")
I would be worried that forcing Google to take action here would set a dangerous precedent. Are Twitter trending topics now actionable (not the tweets themselves, but the service that counts them up and posts the trending hashtags)? This doesn’t seem any different than a Googlebomb, which I can’t believe are libelous (at least not by Google, perhaps by the person or people doing the linking). ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/3 "2012-09-21T19:51:29Z")
I can’t see how it could be Libel. That more people have entered the search term “Bettina Wulff escort” than have “Bettina Wulff escrow” is the truthful fact that Google is reporting. They are making no claims about whether Bettina Wulff was actually an escort. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/4 "2012-09-21T20:21:26Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I can’t see how it could be Libel. That more people have entered the search term “Bettina Wulff escort” than have “Bettina Wulff escrow” is the truthful fact that Google is reporting. They are making no claims about whether Bettina Wulff was actually an escort. That’s not what they are reporting though. They are “suggesting” terms. Suggest implies a level of endorsement that simply reporting a trend or a top 10 list of searches doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/5 "2012-09-21T20:26:22Z")
Except their suggestions are entirely algorithmically generated based on what Google users are searching for. They are making no statement regarding Bettina Wulff’s past. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/6 "2012-09-21T20:32:26Z")
I don’t see the relevance of how the statement is generated by Google. The only relevant point is that Google is suggesting search terms. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/7 "2012-09-21T20:34:44Z")
How is that different than what Google does when you enter “Bettina Wulff” and hit “Enter”? It’s suggesting that you visit certain sites based on her name - can she sue Google if the top result is a site calling her a whore? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/8 "2012-09-21T20:50:25Z")
As **Jas09** pointed out, if she were to win this, it could have a chilling effect on all sorts of things. The only way that I can see that Google could avoid such lawsuits would be to stop making search suggestions. And of course Twitter and other services might have to stop showing “trending topics”. Could FaceBook be sued based on the number of likes for a given post? What about search results, as opposed to suggestions? Should she be able to sue if the first search result accuses her of prostitution? This is a large can of worms. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/9 "2012-09-21T21:19:28Z")
I know Google is huge and all, but people treat it like it’s a government agency or something. It’s a private company, I would think they could do whatever they want on their page, for whatever reason. Someone there could could dislike her, and make it autosuggest “is a cunt” for her name, and that should be their right. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/10 "2012-09-21T21:24:33Z")
And of course the most likely outcome is people searching her name and creating an even stronger bond between “bettina wulff” and prostitution. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/11 "2012-09-21T21:49:25Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I know Google is huge and all, but people treat it like it’s a government agency or something. It’s a private company, I would think they could do whatever they want on their page, for whatever reason. Someone there could could dislike her, and make it autosuggest “is a cunt” for her name, and that should be their right. Well, not really. A company can’t just make factually false defamatory statements about non-public people and for a public person they can’t do it maliciously - that would be libel (I think I got that right for the US). The question is whether merely providing a service through which your customers’ actions cause a false and defamatory statement to be presented to other users is libelous. I don’t see _think_ that it is (or should be). ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/12 "2012-09-21T21:53:28Z")
Google already censors search suggestions. From [their own site on the autocomplete feature](http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=106230). > [@](#): > > The search queries that you see as part of autocomplete are a reflection of the search activity of all web users and the contents of web pages indexed by Google. Just like the web, the search queries presented may include silly or strange or surprising terms and phrases. While we always strive to algorithmically reflect the diversity of content on the web (some good, some objectionable), we also apply a narrow set of removal policies for pornography, violence, hate speech, and terms that are frequently used to find content that infringes copyrights. Try typing in “Asia Carrera” and see if autocomplete suggests anything. In fact, it stops after “Asia Car” because it filters the thousands of searches for “Asia Carrera” from the algorithm that populates autocomplete. Same for “Jenna Jameson” or “Kate Middleton topless photos”. This is despite Google Trends data showing [a huge current spike for “Kate Middleton topless photos”](http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Kate+Middleton+topless+photos&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0), heck it made the [Google hot searches list for Monday Sept 19th](http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends). I think the argument that Google can’t control search suggestions fails in the face of what they admit to doing, and what they already do. Their autocomplete doesn’t fill in “topless photos” after you search “Kate Middleton”. Why should Bettina Wulff settle for it filling in “escort” after her name? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/13 "2012-09-21T22:18:01Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I think the argument that Google can’t control search suggestions fails in the face of what they admit to doing, and what they already do. Their autocomplete doesn’t fill in “topless photos” after you search “Kate Middleton”. Why should Bettina Wulff settle for it filling in “escort” after her name? You can’t really automate that. You’d need to hire a huge number of people to try and figure out what popular search terms were liable and what weren’t. I can’t really see Google wanting to have to try and figure out if Richard Gere put a gerbil up his butt, or whatever the celebrity UL of the day was. And indeed, notice that possible libel isn’t one of the things Google claims to censor search results for. (just for kicks, I put my relatively obscure RL name in to see what the autocomplete gave and got “firstname lastname gay”. I’m not gay, but apparently there’s a minor actor whose relatively attractive and whose name is just one letter away from my name. So presumably people mis-spelling his name is what’s causing the autocomplete. You can hardly expect Google to block things like that, even though if I were litigious I could sue them for suggesting to the world that I’m gay). ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/14 "2012-09-21T22:32:28Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Google already censors search suggestions. From [their own site on the autocomplete feature](http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=106230).Try typing in “Asia Carrera” and see if autocomplete suggests anything. In fact, it stops after “Asia Car” because it filters the thousands of searches for “Asia Carrera” from the algorithm that populates autocomplete. Same for “Jenna Jameson” or “Kate Middleton topless photos”. This is despite Google Trends data showing [a huge current spike for “Kate Middleton topless photos”](http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Kate+Middleton+topless+photos&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0), heck it made the [Google hot searches list for Monday Sept 19th](http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends). > > I think the argument that Google can’t control search suggestions fails in the face of what they admit to doing, and what they already do. Their autocomplete doesn’t fill in “topless photos” after you search “Kate Middleton”. Why should Bettina Wulff settle for it filling in “escort” after her name? > > Enjoy, > Steven Right, but I think they just blanket remove ALL things like “porn”, “topless” etc. You probably won’t get an autocomplete for “Wulff topless” because the word TOPLESS is filtered. It’s not like they specifically removed it just for Kate. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/15 "2012-09-21T23:00:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I think the argument that Google can’t control search suggestions fails in the face of what they admit to doing, and what they already do. But… so what? Why do they have a duty to censor certain searches, just because they censor others? What duty do they owe? [QUOTE=j666] A company can’t just make factually false defamatory statements about non-public people and for a public person they can’t do it maliciously - that would be libel (I think I got that right for the US). [/QUOTE] More or less. The standard is ““actual malice,” that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The standard in Germany is rather lower, though (as it is in most of the world). In fact, §188 (I think) of the German penal code provides for enhanced penalties for criticism of political figures. I’m not sure if spouses qualify. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/16 "2012-09-22T23:13:36Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Well, not really. A company can’t just make factually false defamatory statements about non-public people and for a public person they can’t do it maliciously - that would be libel (I think I got that right for the US). > > The question is whether merely providing a service through which your customers’ actions cause a false and defamatory statement to be presented to other users is libelous. I don’t see _think_ that it is (or should be). They are not even making a statement about her. The only statement they might be making with their auto-completion is that some customers search with those terms. Which can likely be factually proven to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/17 "2012-09-26T13:15:25Z")
Might not matter. A newspaper can be liable for defamation even if all it did was print a slanderous quote. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/18 "2012-09-26T16:09:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > But… so what? Why do they have a duty to censor certain searches, just because they censor others? What duty do they owe? Never said they had a duty to censor, just that the fact that they already do is important. It means they can’t claim the Common Carrier Exception that so many ISPs have used to shield themselves from liability even though their networks are used to transport obscene, pirated, or other illegal materials. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/19 "2012-09-26T16:38:14Z")
I thought the telecommunications common carrier exception only exempted ISPs from deceptive trade practices liability. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/20 "2012-09-26T17:02:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Might not matter. A newspaper can be liable for defamation even if all it did was print a slanderous quote. The auto-fill is more like a newspaper reporting that multiple people have asked this type of question, than a quote of a statement. If a newspaper article states that people are asking if Bettina Wulff was a prostitute, and it’s true that people actually are previous to the printing of the article, is the newspaper liable for defamation? Perhaps she has already sued newspapers for merely mentioning that the question is being asked? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398.md?page=2)