In the early Internet, it was impossible to find isolated references to people, places, and things. Many users navigated using directories like the original Yahoo, and early search tools like Gopher (structured documents) and Archie (FTP) were limited .
The search engines changed everything. Starting with Lycos and AltaVista, information was freed from obscurity. Suddenly, no matter where on the Internet your name might be mentioned, a search engine could find it.
On Monday, we discussed why the Internet is a new frontier. On Tuesday ,we questioned whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 still fits the Internet of 2010. Today, I’ll explain how the rise of search engines since 1996 has changed reputation and privacy, and why CDA 230 subsidizes libel by preventing speakers and facilitators from internalizing the costs of their actions.
Google Has Changed How Information is Consumed
I don’t think Google is evil.
But Google is far from perfect. Google creates the illusion that just ten search results reflect some meaningful judgment on a person’s life. For example, the top five Google search results for any search term get 88% of the clicks. The over-attention given to the first few Google results is partly user error, but it’s also a form of rational ignorance on the part of searchers: Google gives good enough results most of the time, so there is little incentive to look deeper.
The attention given to the first few Google results would be fine if Google always provided accurate, balanced, and relevant information. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. Google has no way to measure whether websites contain information that is true, fair, or proportionate. Instead, Google uses rough heuristics—most notably the number of links to a page—to try to calculate a page’s popularity. Popularity substitutes for relevancy, often [...]