218
Google won't add fact checks despite new EU law
(www.axios.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
218 points (98.7% liked)
World News
498 readers
396 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
Other communities of interest:
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Google doesn't just provide links, it scrubs content out of sites (with scripts before, now with LLMs) and presents it as Google's own content.
If they do that, they should be responsible if the content break laws.
Oh, yes I agree they should be responsible for anything they generate themselves, but if it's just a regurgitation of content that their web crawler pulled from a website which then appeared in search results then it's the original website that should be responsible.
It seems like a heavy-handed enforcement of this policy could just break web search functionality entirely.
Downvoters have no idea how web indexes work.
So if Google pulls out the wrong part of your website and gives dangerous information, you'd be responsible?
Well, why is that 'dangerous information' available to be pulled out of my website in the first place?
My guy, leaving out context can change whether information is dangerous or not.
Say I have a website that explains how to get clothes clean, and I recommend bleach. I also have a subsection "Danger: things you should never do with bleach!" listing dangerous things, e.g. "drinking bleach". Now Google pulls out only that list without the heading.
In your world, I'm responsible for Google showing information in the wrong context, which is nuts. I can't be expected to write everything so it's unambiguous, no matter how small a snippet you extract.
"You don't want to drink bleach on a sunny day" could be understood as "It's okay to drink bleach on a cloudy day"
Um... "could be"...? Literally anything anybody writes could be misinterpreted, so I don't really see the point of this line of argument, nor any value in legislating around it.