| Popular » |
 Can't Buy The Top
|
Copycat Spammers
|
Online Obstacles
|
Crimes On YouTube
|
eBay Fair Trade
|
eBay Feedback
|
He called the continued appearance of those criticisms "pure and utter libel," and believes they were initially posted by business competitors. Retkin said the domain offers in question were "perfectly legitimate."
At this point, Retkin thinks Google has removed about 15,000 links from its international search engines, like Google.co.uk. On that site, a query for dotworlds scam returns notes at the bottom of Google's search results, saying the company has removed some links in response to a legal request.
"Google gets mad when it's used against them," Retkin said, referring to the notorious incident where CNET published copious information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt that writer Elinor Mills found using the search engine.
On Google's US search pages , the same query for dotworlds scam returns over 300 results, referring to the postings that have Retkin and his legal advisors at odds with the company.
Retailers Panic Over Google Site SearchBeating The Unbeatable GoogleGoogle Needs K Street View Of DCGoogle Asked To Reveal Blogger IdentityWhat Do You Think About Paid Links?Google Sacrifices Clicks To Increase Advertiser ROIGoogle Debunks Link Sabotage TheoriesCutts, Sullivan Weigh In On Paid Links7 Reasons Google's Paid Link Snitch Plan SucksDo Not Follow Google's Mistakes
Comments
This is idiocy, plain and
This is idiocy, plain and simple. Try doing the same search on Yahoo, MSN, Ask, or any other smaller search engine and guess what you find..... yep, that's right, the pages Google has ignored.
Grow up Retkin, and go after the sources, even if you have to get orders against forums or sites, it's far more likely to clear the web of the "lies", than going after Google. I notice elsewhere, you claim to have already tried to go after the sources, although you obviously haven't, as the material dates from 2002 and 2003.
Google is only one piece of the puzzle, and, believe it or not, is not responsible for every piece of information it indexes, especially as the information is still easily available via every other search engine on the net. Google is only responsible for 54% of the market*, what about the other 46% that can still access that material?
I look forward to you going after Yahoo, MSN, Ask, etc. etc. but somehow, I doubt that'll ever happen as you're only interested in extorting money from Google.
*Source Nielson/Net Ratings.
We understand
We understand that there are many who are rightly concerned about this case. However, what is happening to us is also happening to others and be under no illusion, it could also happen to you.
Google and other search engines spider links and articles on the Web all day every day and can, in the USA, disseminate the information contained whatever the content, without any liability to themselves (due 1st amendment/freedom of speech laws).
So what does this mean? This means that tomorrow morning someone with a grudge against you (maybe someone you looked at in a funny way 20 years ago) could tell the world that you are a fraudster, a criminal and a murderer (and that's just for starters). Within days if not hours, articles containing this "factual information" would start to appear on Search Engines, under your name, probably near the top of the list, lingering on websites like Google for perhaps the next 30 years. Anyone, be it friends, family, potential employers would have instant access to this information simply by "Googling" you. Your life is about to change forever. You have no idea how much.
Ah, but couldn't you complain to Google - after all, you are totally innocent of all charges - except maybe for the crime of coming into contact with a complete loony. Absolutely, but Google would do nothing. You would need a court order. Google is not responsible for the content on it's website and Google is protected by law. No, just go away and search all cyberspace. Take it up with the anonymous author who doesn’t exist.
If, as has been pointed out that the information on Google’s Search Engine is not always 100% accurate, then perhaps Google should make this clear. Google is a phenomenal product and it is understandable that many have absolute faith in it. However, at the very least there is imbalance and this imbalance is clearly reflected in dotWORLDS case, where despite the fact that Google has published numerous withdrawal notices on Google.UK, not a word of this is mentioned in Google.COM. Why not? If there is a question on authenticity, why aren’t users in the USA told. You may not care one way or the other, but this is not a level playing field of information and as a direct result Google are putting their USA users in jeopardy.
Repeat publicly any libel that you (or anyone else) find on Google - even if you believe to be 100% accurate - and it is only you that is at risk. If prosecution follows, it will be you that is dragged off to court and if convicted, it would be your big problem and yours alone. Unfortunately, “I found it on Google” is no defense and you can be sure that Google will not be there to help you out. Of course, Google are protected and face no liability whatsoever as in the USA as they aren’t accountable. This would not be the case in the UK and elsewhere.
So, what do Google do in their own back yard. Well, take the case of Cnet. A reporter a CNet wanted to see how much information could be gathered on the net within a short period of time. After locating some personal information about Dr Schmidt, Google’s Chairman (amongst other things) the data was published. Google, incensed at this invasion of privacy, immediately banned its staff from talking to CNet reporters for one year. Embarrassingly, it transpired that not only was the information already in the public domain, but the same information about Dr Schmidt was also available on Google's own websites.
"Google's reaction to CNet is totally inconsistent with its handling of a man who had been falsely accused as a pedophile by his wife during divorce hearings, The man's name and photograph were posted on a police website but were removed after the charges were dropped. However, having picked up the story, Google did not remove the pictures or postings it had published on its search engine. According to Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum (WPF), the page remained accessible through Google and was only removed after a long struggle.
There are 11.5 billion pages on Google. But really, how much of it is truly meaningful. Has this become a race for quantity over quality. Search "Google" on Google and you will find 1 billion entries. Great company - yes it is - but are there really a billion things to say about them. Spend 10 seconds on each page to find out and you will be at your computer for around the next 317 years (give or take a few days).
Yes, freedom of speech must be preserved and protected, but there is a fine line that is often blurred. We have built up an organization with members and users in over 90 countries around the world and we feel absolutely justified in trying to protect ourselves. As far as we are concerned, Google have been playing games with us for years - responding, ignoring, apologising, removing and re-inserting to their own agenda and in no particular order. This matter could have been settled long ago, amicably and without publicity. On our side at least, we have a mountain of letters and paperwork to prove that
What if the stories are true
What if the stories said about this registrar are true? I visited their main page, and it immediately tried to post something from my client browser to their server.
What if what the person wrote at the time in the lists was true? Isn't the definition of libel that a person knowingly says something false in order to create harm?
And who is to stop his from going after Google because he doesn't like what I'm writing in your comments? For all the vaunted protection Google says they give the data, will the company continue to fold anytime some wanker doesn't like what people say about them.
Why didn't the person go after the forums where this info was posted? Because he doesn't have the legal right to do so? Then why does Google feel it has to pull such?
Post new comment