World News

177 readers

1 users here now

Please help and contribute as we vote on rules:
https://quokk.au/post/21590

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

Quokka@quokk.au

220

Google won't add fact checks despite new EU law (www.axios.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Lemmynated@lemmy.zip to c/world@quokk.au

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Google has told the EU it will not add fact checks to search results and YouTube videos or use them in ranking or removing content, despite the requirements of a new EU law, according to a copy of a letter obtained by Axios

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I do have to wonder, how could Google (or any search engine) be expected to perform fact checking on search results? It seems technically impossible.

[–] Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So if Google pulls out the wrong part of your website and gives dangerous information, you'd be responsible?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well, why is that 'dangerous information' available to be pulled out of my website in the first place?

[–] Ssolos@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"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"

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] kipo@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It also seems ethically and culturally disastrous. I do not want Google to be the arbiter of truth on the internet. Does the EU law require that the fact-checks be accurate and unbiased?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago

Hmm, I guess from one point of view Google already is the de facto "arbiter of truth on the internet" as the most popular search engine, hence the need for regulation.

Does the EU law require that the fact-checks be accurate and unbiased?

Are they really fact checks otherwise?

But then you definitely have a who-watches-the-watchers problem.