Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site.
I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though.
> Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.
But Google would be the only restaurant on the whole planet in that analogy.
To further the analogy - it would be like telling McDonalds to not sell food to this person but ignoring In'n'Out Burger and Burger King.
I understand the point about forcing Google to stop sellin advertising to this person. I am confused about how a disappeared person continues to pay for services from Google; why didn't anyone get a court order to force Google to release information about the infringer?
{edit: i did not downvote parent. I am not sure why parent has been downvoted}
I hadn't heard about this before today and doing a bit of research it sounds like something that has been going on for years - since at least 2007 - and there has been some really dodgy practice. (But I still don't see why Google is targeted here).
And it seems that Datalink have made some effort to clarify the situation: http://1770-kf3.com/
> We would like to clarify that DataLink no longer sell/promote the following Canadian manufacturer’s products. “Equustek Solutions Inc.’s products (www.equustek.com), as listed below, are no longer distributed by Datalink:”
“Customers of these products should contact Equustek directly at the website above or toll free at 1-888-387-3787"
I don't know this area so I have no idea what I need to type into a search box to get a Datalink result turning up where I should be getting an Equustek result. (And I'm trying across different search engines).
I wonder if this will eventually lead to google making use of a decentralized federated search strategy where they provide the technology to everyone who wants their site to be findable by means of google, but do not actually produce the results themselves. From a technological pov that would certainly be far more challenging than their current system, but it might make them less of a target legally.
> Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site.
Google is in the ad business in the same way a newspaper or a magazine is: Selling ads is the major source of income. Every time someone says that Google is an ad business, for calibration remind yourself that so is the New York Times.
Anyway, Google linking (in the regular results section, not ads) to the website of a given business is similar to a newspaper or magazine stating in editorial content that a certain business exists and what its address is. That is obviously not "selling ads" in any way, shape or form.
Well Google is the only one that matters. Sure Bing and DDG exist and you can sometimes bump into a person using either of those, but for majority of the population, Google is the Internet, for better or worse.
I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though.
> Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.
But Google would be the only restaurant on the whole planet in that analogy.