Google libel - a victory for common sense

Information Week US reports on a huge victory for common sense this week. Yes, Google has managed to overcome yet another law suit, this time over an obviously ludicrous libel claim that, had they lost, would have set a dangerous precedent for communications, customer service and the freedom of information on the internet.

The claim, and I won’t mention any names for fear of litigation, you can read about them in the Information Week article, was that Google should be held liable for third party comments that appear in its search results. You know that derogatory blog post that’s taken on a life of its own in the search results? The one that outranks your own website? Or the forum where customers keep saying your product is faulty or dangerous? The company basically wanted Google to admit liability for anything possibly libellous said about them that appears in its search results.

Well, unfortunately for the lazy communicators out there, and thankfully for those with a shred of common sense, the company lost. You aren’t simply going to be able to sue Google and get any derogatory comment removed. Shame…

It’s important that this case went the way it did, firstly because its obvious that a search engine is there for presenting you with all the information it deems relevant to your search enquiry, It is NOT there to block and selectively present corporate-approved content; we have seen the impact of content blocking and filtering in various locations around the world and it simply doesn’t and shouldn’t work. The second point is that filtering such comments would be to negate a huge part of what the web is about – a forum for feedback and communication.

So, someone says something bad about your company or product. Taking the legal route nowadays will frequently turn dissenting voices into a movement and a movement will gain even more interest, followers and even mass-media coverage. Scary stuff.

SO ENGAGE! Find out what the issue is. Find out whether it’s true, If it is, fix it, If it isn’t engage with those that are saying it and present the correct, evidenced case.

Disgruntled people rarely attack companies for absolutely no reason and if you don’t engage, you’ll never know what their issues are. So many companies are getting so good at this and their customers appreciate it no-end, building long-term brand loyaloty. If you fail to address your customers’ and stakeholders’ concerns, they will say bad things about you and will ultimately buy elsewhere.

Make sense?

Comments

[Vineeta Manglani]

A loss for Google would certainly have set a dangerous precident! A real victory for common sense...and in a way democracy as well as you can't have censored what you simply do not like!

[jastca]

woah woah woah...Google does a fantastic job of censoring its news for the political will of the Chinese Government. Google does a fantastic job of playing down its own failures too in its own Google News coverage. Google censors what it chooses, when it likes already. It's just that the privelege isn't extended to all of us.

What this case means is that it doesn't matter whether you're lumped with 'lazy communicators' or not, because what really matters is if you have the financial or political clout for Google to look after you...and real people and normal businesses can go feck themselves.

From reading, looks like your objectives might be to try and kow tow to Google and maybe impress a few into thinking that you should be ENGAGING! on their behalf. In real life in real crises I'd want a little less diatribe and a safer pair of hands.

So chaps. Ethical dilemma. Will you censor this comment or ENGAGE! in the debate?

[Toby Brown]

Hi Jastca,

Thanks for the very valued comment. I haven't censored it as I am entirely for free speech which is what the post was about.

I make no bones about Google's own failings as a promoter of free speech. You mention its censorship in China which is of course deplorable but as a multinational company their decision was obviously based on finance alone with ethics severely on the back burner. The fact is that if they don't cooperate with the ruling regime, they are effectively shut out of one of the largest growth markets in the world. From a business perspective it would be a very brave and unprecedented decision to simply leave China alone until it allows its citizens unbridled free speech and democracy. It would be great if they did this but it simply won’t happen.

I’ve written a bit before about their other failings too: http://buffaloblog.buffalo.co.uk/the_buffalo_blog/2007/11/information-wil.html.

Whether Google censors what people say about it is another issue altogether. Indeed most companies that enter into communicating with their audiences, focus a lot of their time promoting what is good and trying to skirt over what is bad. The fact Google is so powerful and so vital to the way most people operate makes this ‘fact’ (and I haven’t done any digging into whether your claim is true) somewhat more sinister. If it is true it of course raises many more ethical questions about what it does censor and what it doesn’t.

What I am pushing towards with this post is an entirely free search engine landscape with everything and everything in the public domain indexed and available to all. This is the basis for free speech online and a centre point in every person in a free society being able to make fully informed decisions about any issue.

The reason I have an issue with the court case is not because I want to champion Google and all it stands for. Trying to quash comments via legal means erodes the ‘perfect’ search engine as I see it (whether this currently exists or not). If they had won it would have created a rule-based system where some things are hidden and some are not. And this is why I am encouraging direct engagement with those that are making the comments an organisation is not happy with.

Like I said, companies SHOULD engage with the people who are talking about them. Whether an agency does it or not is not the issue. I believe effective direct communications with key stakeholders to be a core tenet of the multifarious business communications landscape in which we all now operate.

[Jastca]

Nice answer, thanks! Course, I disagree. Not massively though (apart from the effective direct key stakeholder tenet multifarious landscape operative comms buzzword scrabble bit).

However, taking it back another step down the free speech staircase, one could argue that the entire communications industry's reason for existence is to give a helping hand to those who are willing to pay (for example, online through the silencing/fanning of debate). So it's a compromised viewpoint from which to stand. You can't help that though and it's easy to argue that the legal industry is in much the same position - indeed any consultative industry but particularly comms and legal where moral high ground is so often scrapped over. Thanks though - appreciate the banter!