Whatever the solution, it's not to leave final arbitration of Google's search results up to a censorious Internet gatekeeper's tools and lists. We've been over this already with the Internet Watch Foundation.
easily solved, just get rid of proposition 230 and welcome google to the real world where uncle sam doesn't protect your money making scams no matter how bad they are for everyone.
I don't think that is the solution either. From someone who lives in a country without safe harbour style laws, it is prohibitively risky to bootstrap digital ventures that work with customer images.
Something like imgur or giphy would be untennable here, in my opinion, unless you had an army of lawyers (which doesn't solve the nefarious content problem, just keeps you in business)
Whatever the solution, it's not to leave final arbitration of Google's search results up to a censorious Internet gatekeeper's tools and lists. We've been over this already with the Internet Watch Foundation.
Yeah, it seems ridiculous to expect Google to police this, when it’s fundamentally a problem with the internet.
People want to find someone they can blame, so they choose an easy target like Google instead of the actual sites hosting the problem content.
easily solved, just get rid of proposition 230 and welcome google to the real world where uncle sam doesn't protect your money making scams no matter how bad they are for everyone.
I don't think that is the solution either. From someone who lives in a country without safe harbour style laws, it is prohibitively risky to bootstrap digital ventures that work with customer images.
Something like imgur or giphy would be untennable here, in my opinion, unless you had an army of lawyers (which doesn't solve the nefarious content problem, just keeps you in business)
It is a google liability. If you sling meth, you are on the hook even if you didn't make it.
They are profiting off distribution.
[flagged]