Re:230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question
by IAmEveryone on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @04:12PM
(#22816579)
That example has absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230. Google’s ad design is all on Google. If it were illegal, Sec 230 wouldn’t protect them. And while Google might be protected against liability for Mapquest’s business practices, Mapquest isn’t. If their behavior is harmful and illegal, they are liable.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question
by ocdtrekkie on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @04:19PM
(#22816628)
MapQuest did nothing wrong in this example. The problem is the fake sites that are taking the top spot in search results above the legitimate MapQuest link when you search Google for MapQuest, and Google refuses to delist them. And of course, Google lets people buy ads for other companies' trademarks, which is a whole different ball of issues.
(MapQuest is a popular one for malicious sites to pretend to be because most of the people searching for it are seniors... they heard about it twenty years ago and then never moved on from searching for it when they want directions somewhere.)
Re:230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question
by spaced-out on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @05:27PM
(#22817361)
What does this have to do with Section 230?
Re:230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question
by ocdtrekkie on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @06:17PM
(#22817811)
The moment someone points out Google makes a huge amount of money on scams and malware, and due to Section 230, can't really be held responsible for it.
Re:230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question
by bryan_w on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @07:41PM
(#22818371)
Fining Google doesn't help the problem there, you would want to work with Google to find out who made the deceptive ad and deal with them so they can't continue on to hurt more people
Re:230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question
by ocdtrekkie on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @08:36PM
(#22818696)
Google knows who they are: They're business partners.