# 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:** 1\ **Page:** 2
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398/21 "2012-09-26T17:27:38Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > 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? Well, if the questions are published with reckless disregard for the truth, yes (eg., the publisher knows she’s not a prostitute). > [@](#): > > The auto-fill is more like a newspaper reporting that multiple people have asked this type of question, than a quote of a statement. I think a better argument is just that the auto-fill feature does not equate to publication, since the suggestions don’t actually exist until the user starts typing. I think the best possible legal analogy (at least under US law) is liability of website operators for content posted by third parties, since the autofill suggestions are effectively amalgamations of third party content. We’ve discussed it in several threads here before, particularly as it pertains to the Chicago Reader. In short, the Communications Decency Act (specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 230) immunizes “computer service providers” (website operators) from claims based on the exercise of the traditional role of a publisher. Google enjoys this immunity because it’s a service provider rather than a content provider. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-google-invented-algorithmic-libel/635398.md?page=1)