Abdulllah Alamin

More actions

Forum Posts

Abdulllah Alamin
Jun 27, 2022
In General Discussion
Google chooses to conduct an assessment of the removal requests they receive to ensure that everything is valid, and as there have apparently been cases of fraud Shadow Making perpetrated in court, Google appears to perform an audit of each court order to determine whether those accused of defamation were properly identified and notified of the court proceedings, whether the identified prohibited content resides at the URLs identified in the court orders, and Moreover. In Shadow Making my opinion, Google would be better off leaving these matters to the courts - which should verify these elements during the process. In the meantime, people who have committed fraud in Shadow Making court should be held accountable and face criminal prosecution. But the actions of a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the barrel for everyone. One can understand Google's reluctance to divulge certain secrets. The company's search engine algorithms, for example, are trade secrets. But the process Shadow Making and policies for evaluating legal claims are arguably an entirely different matter — one in which Google expresses a desire for transparency by regularly publishing ransparency reports. To be completely transparent. Google must clearly indicate the criteria on which it will base Shadow Making its decisions. As one defamation lawyer told Google, individuals can lose their businesses, careers, and ultimately their lives to online reputation attacks. Yes, there are legitimate free speech issues that sometimes come into play, as well as the previously mentioned fraud against the Shadow Making courts, but the little guys with far fewer resources are the victims of outsiders who need lawyers in this case. US laws that allow many websites to distribute content without liability to remove defamation – particularly Section 230 of the.
0
0
2