谷歌搜索结果:埋葬如果没有被遗忘

Allyson Haynes Stuart
{"title":"谷歌搜索结果:埋葬如果没有被遗忘","authors":"Allyson Haynes Stuart","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2343398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The right to be forgotten or to require that online information be deleted squarely confronts the First Amendment right to free speech. But the underlying problem giving rise to this right is only increasing: harmful information posted online has the real potential to destroy a person’s reputation or livelihood. In addition, the way Internet users get their information – search engines, primarily Google – emphasizes harmful information if it is “popular” under Google’s algorithm. Google’s response to requests for removal is that it cannot control the underlying websites, so removing information from its results is pointless. But in fact, the search results themselves are of crucial importance. And those results are already being altered. If Internet users’ primary access to the vast amount of online information is filtered – and hand-edited – by a search engine, why shouldn’t that editing take into consideration the harmful nature of some information? This Article proposes that Google consider “demoting” references to information in its search results that falls within one of several sensitive categories, and the party requesting removal has unsuccessfully exhausted her remedies with respect to the website publisher of the information. This amounts not to censorship, but to factoring in the nature of the information itself in determining its relevance in response to search requests.","PeriodicalId":90661,"journal":{"name":"North Carolina journal of law & technology","volume":"15 1","pages":"463"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Google Search Results: Buried If Not Forgotten\",\"authors\":\"Allyson Haynes Stuart\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2343398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The right to be forgotten or to require that online information be deleted squarely confronts the First Amendment right to free speech. But the underlying problem giving rise to this right is only increasing: harmful information posted online has the real potential to destroy a person’s reputation or livelihood. In addition, the way Internet users get their information – search engines, primarily Google – emphasizes harmful information if it is “popular” under Google’s algorithm. Google’s response to requests for removal is that it cannot control the underlying websites, so removing information from its results is pointless. But in fact, the search results themselves are of crucial importance. And those results are already being altered. If Internet users’ primary access to the vast amount of online information is filtered – and hand-edited – by a search engine, why shouldn’t that editing take into consideration the harmful nature of some information? This Article proposes that Google consider “demoting” references to information in its search results that falls within one of several sensitive categories, and the party requesting removal has unsuccessfully exhausted her remedies with respect to the website publisher of the information. This amounts not to censorship, but to factoring in the nature of the information itself in determining its relevance in response to search requests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"North Carolina journal of law & technology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"463\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"North Carolina journal of law & technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2343398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North Carolina journal of law & technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2343398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

被遗忘权或要求删除在线信息的权利直接与第一修正案的言论自由权相冲突。但导致这项权利产生的潜在问题只会越来越严重:网上发布的有害信息有可能毁掉一个人的声誉或生计。此外,互联网用户获取信息的方式——搜索引擎,主要是谷歌——如果在谷歌的算法下是“受欢迎的”,就会强调有害信息。谷歌对删除请求的回应是,它无法控制底层网站,因此从其搜索结果中删除信息是毫无意义的。但事实上,搜索结果本身是至关重要的。这些结果已经被改变了。如果互联网用户对大量在线信息的主要访问是由搜索引擎过滤和手工编辑的,那么为什么这种编辑不应该考虑到一些信息的有害性质呢?本文建议谷歌考虑在其搜索结果中“降级”对属于几个敏感类别之一的信息的引用,并且请求删除的一方已就信息的网站发布者用尽了她的补救措施,但未能成功。这并不等同于审查,而是考虑到信息本身的性质,以确定其在响应搜索请求时的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Google Search Results: Buried If Not Forgotten
The right to be forgotten or to require that online information be deleted squarely confronts the First Amendment right to free speech. But the underlying problem giving rise to this right is only increasing: harmful information posted online has the real potential to destroy a person’s reputation or livelihood. In addition, the way Internet users get their information – search engines, primarily Google – emphasizes harmful information if it is “popular” under Google’s algorithm. Google’s response to requests for removal is that it cannot control the underlying websites, so removing information from its results is pointless. But in fact, the search results themselves are of crucial importance. And those results are already being altered. If Internet users’ primary access to the vast amount of online information is filtered – and hand-edited – by a search engine, why shouldn’t that editing take into consideration the harmful nature of some information? This Article proposes that Google consider “demoting” references to information in its search results that falls within one of several sensitive categories, and the party requesting removal has unsuccessfully exhausted her remedies with respect to the website publisher of the information. This amounts not to censorship, but to factoring in the nature of the information itself in determining its relevance in response to search requests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信