"[Google] had not participated in the (..) disseminating of the defamatory matter" is an _interesting_ take. Many websites rely on search engines for a significant part of their traffic, and the fact that people pay for ads in search results underwrites this. If Google plays a significant part in getting content to people's eyeballs, how do they not "participate in disseminating"?
Furthermore, the judgement makes it sound like Google's algorithm is fully neutral, that the results are the outcome of a simple mathematical algorithm. But Google is well-known to alter search result by manually boosting or banning websites. Given that Google has editorial control over the results, does the continued showing of misleading search results not count as defamation? How is it not the same as a newspaper continuing to call someone an "accused murderer" years after they have been acquitted?
In my opinion, Google gets to eat its cake and have it: full control over the content and none of the responsibility.
Furthermore, the judgement makes it sound like Google's algorithm is fully neutral, that the results are the outcome of a simple mathematical algorithm. But Google is well-known to alter search result by manually boosting or banning websites. Given that Google has editorial control over the results, does the continued showing of misleading search results not count as defamation? How is it not the same as a newspaper continuing to call someone an "accused murderer" years after they have been acquitted?
In my opinion, Google gets to eat its cake and have it: full control over the content and none of the responsibility.