Court Rules Google Can Arrange & Rearrange Search Results Any Way it Wants..

[Tech_Dreamer]

First amendment is a checkmate

 

Google has free speech right in search results(well..atleast one court agrees)

 

A San Francisco court ruled last week that Google has the right to arrange its search results as it pleases, which confirms the company’s long-held position

 

 

The ruling exposes the stark difference in how U.S. and European authorities seek to regulate the search giant.

 

 

The new ruling may disappoint websites that feel they are at the mercy of Google for much of their traffic, and who would regulators to impose rules on Google.

 

courts and regulatory bodies in the US have generally agreed that Google's search results are considered free speech. That consensus was upheld last Thursday, when a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Google's right to order its search results as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

How did it all start?

 

The new ruling, which is the first since 2007 to address Google’s rights under the First Amendment, came after a website called CoastNews argued that Google had unfairly pushed it far down in its search results even though, CoastNews claimed, its site appeared at the top of results created by Bing and Yahoo. CoastNews suggested the poor rankings were because Google wanted to eliminate CoastNews as a potential competitor.

 

The new ruling may disappoint websites that feel they are at the mercy of Google for much of their traffic, and who would regulators to impose rules on Google.

 

 

 

Google has long adopted that “search results are as free speech”

 

 

Google responded by filing an “anti-SLAPP” motion, which is often used by defendants to guard against litigation that would deter free speech. In a one-paragraph ruling, Judge Ernest Goldsmith granted the request, saying CoastNews’ claims against Google related to “constitutionally protected activity.”

 

the news is of somewhat importance because in a recent similar legal altercation with a search engine called Baidu, which was sued in America by pro-democracy activists for censoring political speech from US users. Nevertheless, the Manhattan US District judge in that case ruled that the search engine could organize its search results as it liked because it was protected by the First Amendment.

 

 

First amendment or not , this gives immense power over to our favorite search results providers & they can manipulate or organize things in a way they seem fit, 

 

 

The decision is important because it comes at a time when companies like Yelp or Travelocity complain that Google, as it moves into fields like restaurants and travel, can use its power over search results to help its own websites at the expense of rivals. In Europe, regulators are moving to impose a series of measures such as forcing Google to display rivals’ ads in a prominent place  intended to address the company’s allegedly anti-competitive conduct.

 

 

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt argued last month, the importance of search results may be declining at a time when more consumers are looking for information on retail sites like Amazon or on social media.

 

this doesn't mean Google will be protected forever from other angry websites, here at home or elsewhere around the globe. But, should a similar lawsuit arise, it does allow the company to argue that a court has already agreed with it before.

 

 

Good news if on good hands, bad news if they get a different idea, Google has a lot of power in this field of interweb , lets just hope they don't just outright blanket every other search term they find not worthy or even politics..

 

What are your thoughts on this News? Are you happy with the ruling or dissapaointed? Let me know in the comments down belooooooooooooooooooowww..

 

Bonus:

 

Links:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/17/google-search-results-first-amendment/

https://gigaom.com/2014/11/17/google-has-free-speech-right-in-search-results-court-confirms/

 

 

TLDR:

Google wants to organize search items they way they like, Meaning they can pick & choose website they like to be up in the first page results, they now can ignore rival sites they think that will hurt their business it's gives Google more power to pick & choose (biased search results if they wish to)..

[OriginalPromise]

"Free Speech"...

This can get dangerous.

 

Doesn't this mean Google could give out false information because they have the right to say wtf they want?

With the exception of defamation and threats.

[Jerakl]

TL;DR please

[Tech_Dreamer]

TL;DR please

Google wants to organize search items they way they like, Meaning they can pick & choose website they like to be up in the first page results, while they may & now can ignore rival sites they think that will hurt their business it's gives google more power to pick & choose (biased search results if they wish to)..

[Enderman]

Yay google.

Always believe in the google.

Google is god.

[JB780]

I for one welcome our new search engine robot overlords and would like to remind them that as a forum commenter I can be helpful in rounding up any potential dissidents that may attempt to form a resistance.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/29/google-robotics-us-military-boston-dynamics

[mr moose]

Don't like it? start using bing.....     :unsure: 

[martinrox1568]

"Free Speech"...

This can get dangerous.

 

Doesn't this mean Google could give out false information because they have the right to say wtf they want?

With the exception of defamation and threats.

Google is only providing links to websites. If they wanted to create a website that had whatever information, no matter how wrong it is, they have just as much of a right to do so as much as anyone else. And now back on topic, I don't feel that this is really a problem. Who do you want to control the power of organizing links? Google will probably do it better than anyone else will, giving the most relevent results, and they couldn't choose to hide or bury results of competing websites for 2 reasons. 1. If someone wanted to use bing, they'd go to bing.com, not google.com and then seach bing, and 2nd the amount of controversy that would create would effect them more negatively than positively. It would not only piss off the people using bing, but people that use google would be mad and not trust google

[heineygoat]

Well of course Google can? It's their search engine.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Don't like it? start using bing.....     :unsure:

 

Hey come on now, they have nice pictures!

I hear DuckDuckGo is good

[Jaybird]

Seems reasonable to me. You don't have your clients come over and rearrange your book collection at your house. It's google website, I say they are free to what ever they want.

[ShadowCaptain]

Yeah I think people see google as the actual internet, instead of a company providing a service

 

If google wish to arrange their searches, exclude things, or do whatever, they are free to do that as long as what they do is not illegal. 

 

I imagine google want to promote websites that make google more money, or more prominent, which is understandable and completely fair

[StingBull]

This is bullshit. This has nothing to do with free speech. This court just gave Google the legal right to be anticompetitive.

[ManWithBeard1990]

Of course they can. Why wouldn't they be allowed to? It's their search engine. You have the right to use a different one if you want. It's not like they must answer to taxpayers or anything.They're not a public resource, they're a company. And it'd be silly to think up new laws just to make sure Google does what's in the best interests of the people. That's not what companies are for, they're there to make money and earn a living. Don't worry. Customers are never really loyal and if and when Google lets its evil side through too much, people will find ways not to use their services. It's in Google's own best interest to serve people welland there's still enough competition out there for them not to do anything stupid.

[StingBull]

Too all the people saying there other search engines so it's okay for Google to do whatever, there were other web browsers too but Microsoft still got sued for Internet Explorer.

[Deli]

Of course they can. Why wouldn't they be allowed to? It's their search engine. You have the right to use a different one if you want. It's not like they must answer to taxpayers or anything.They're not a public resource, they're a company. And it'd be silly to think up new laws just to make sure Google does what's in the best interests of the people. That's not what companies are for, they're there to make money and earn a living. Don't worry. Customers are never really loyal and if and when Google lets its evil side through too much, people will find ways not to use their services. It's in Google's own best interest to serve people welland there's still enough competition out there for them not to do anything stupid.

Can you use the same analogy for ISPs? 

[ManWithBeard1990]

Can you use the same analogy for ISPs? 

No because there's an antitrust issue here where the ISPs go out of each others way to keep their monopolies in their territories. You can always switch to a different search engine though.

[dragosudeki]

They technically could give out whatever they want, but this could also be good. If someone doesn't want to appear in search results and Google takes those requests, then at least they are able to fulfill it. Plus, they can't be forced to give us something that we don't want, so this could be bad or good, depending on how Google uses it. 

[Misanthrope]

Well that does it I'm moving to a new search engine!

 

*Googles search engine*

 

Damn it!

[Real_PhillBert]

Lol Google is a business. You wouldn't have the government tell a grocery store how to arrange products on its shelf?

[zanduh]

Google is a business not a gift.

[IdortMasterRace]

Google are allowed to, and Google should be allowed to. I just won't use any of their services or support them in any way.

 

For almost every Google service, there is a much better alternative.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Funny thing is it's noty just google, it's every media outlet outthere that has this capability, How they use it defines them, there's always gonna be those who follow everything blindly like religion.

[bob345]

Its not like Google hasn't been doing this for years already.

[sof006]

I doubt Google would abuse this... Not at all.

 

 

*wink*