Just a moment...
www.axios.com

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

  • Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    35·
    15 hours ago

    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.pubEnglish
      38·
      12 hours ago

      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
        51·
        15 hours ago

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

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          23·
          14 hours ago

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

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 hours 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.

          • Ssolos@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            4·
            9 hours ago

            “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.pubEnglish
              1·
              6 hours 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.