Did Matt Cutts Re-Index the Defamatory Material?

In my last post I wrote that this blog had suddenly been restored to the SERPS for my name after I referred to Matt Cutts (and his Google cronies) as being deficit of a soul. My blog was not restored because of any altruistic motive.

The reason was solely concerned with their somewhat childish need to prove that they do not censor their search. It is unbelievable that they would think that restoring one blog is important given the evidence offered at the recent US antitrust hearings that they ‘cook the books’ to favour their products.

It follows that in Google’s opinion Ripoff Report provides the best ‘answer’ for their users. After all, that is their stated mission.  At least three companies ‘verified safe’ by Ripoff Report have been investigated and/or prosecuted by the US and Australian authorities in the past two years.

Do Google REALLY think that providing their users with choices via Ripoff Report’s, paid ‘verified safe’ tag is in their best interest. Maybe Google actually know better than the ACCC and our Federal Court. As of November 10th 2011, Ripoff Report is STILL advocating that Storesonline is ‘verified safe’. Of course the Google users who have lost their money to this company and the ACCC prosecutors may disagree.

Maybe I should have grovelled in gratitude for manually adjusting my blog back into the SERPS because within hours of my last post Google had restored a link that opens to 5 of the 6 defamatory posts on Ripoff Report. A link and snippet to the defamatory material appears on the first page of my name SERPS on www.google.com.au (it was never removed from google.com but WAS removed from google.com.au several months ago). Compare the search on the Australian domain in this video (at 2.23) with this video (from 0.40). My printed searches show that the link was actually reindexed in the SERPS some hours after the blog.

The blog data shows that Google were swarming on the blog after the last post. I was not aware that my failure to provide the due amount of gratitude and platitudes over the restoration of my blog was necessary and therefore the defamatory material was reinstated. Nonetheless, restoring previously removed defamatory material while a case is in litigation is an action that only a company worth $190 billion dollars can afford because it can increase damages. Maybe they think their deep pocketing will be successful. Or perhaps it is simply Google’s policy to reinstate material that they have agreed to remove.

In early 2010 Google Australia agreed to remove some extremely sick racist material about Indigenous Australians from the Website Encyclopedia Dramatica after a complaint to the Australian Human Rights by an Indigenous man. After intiailly refusing to remove the links, Google Australia agreed in response after media coverage and the Sydney Morning Herald.  By April 2011 this material was again published on all Google domains and accessible in Australia. This video shows that the racist material was  indexed on the same page as the Chilling Effects notification on the Google Australia domain.

Update March 2012. Encyclopedia Dramatica has moved domains.

Google also indexes webpages from Enclyclopedia Dramatica containing unimaginably vile, racist, discriminatory and sick material  such as:

  •  This is the kind of shit that happens if you don’t kill someone after you rape them’, (on rape)
  •   ‘The n*^^* believe that being lesbian equals being mentally ill. To cure this, they employ a tried-and-tested method throughout Africa as not only a universal cure, but also as a pastime: namely, rape’ .thod popular 
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica useses the word retard  to describe people with intellectual disabilities and states that the only cure for a female retard is rape!
  • A page that contains a video of what appears to be a gay rape and murder  is accessible in Australia. In August 2011 I reported this video to the Australian Communications Media Authority (AMCA) and was informed action would be taken.

But I digress!

The racist material from Encyclopedia Dramatica is not the only example of removals that eventually reappear. Allegedly defamatory webpages that were the subject of a court action against Google Australia (for defamation) are currently indexed on the Google Australia domain.

By the time of the first directions hearing in the Supreme Court, a Chilling Effects notification had been posted on the SERPS for the plaintiffs name and the links were removed. The notification is no longer published on the SERPS for the names of the plaintiffs and the links open to the full articles. The media at the time reported details of this case but I cannot link to the articles because of the risk of defamation.

Update: December 2011

Google have removed the url that they re-indexed on google.com.au but we had to officially request the removal. This url was one of those sent to Google Inc and Google Australia in my final concerns notices (November/December 2010) before I filed proceedings. they refused to remove it (and the others) until I filed proceedings. Google have subsequently spent tens of thousands on two law firms to defend their failure to undertake an action that would have taken them a few minutes to complete.

This week the court ordered Google to file a defence by the end of February.

Update: March 2012

Google have re-indexed some of the links to the defamatory material they previously removed. Punishment because I would not just go away?

We finally got the defence after putting them on notice. We are in court in April for a Directions Hearing.

 

, , , , ,

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Why I am suing Google. | Internet Defamation: A Case Blog - 31/03/2012

    […] Recently, Encyclopedia Dramatica has again moved domains  and this changes the links. But the number of page views are increasing.  There is some information that this website is connected with the hackers who operate under the name of ‘anonymous’. Some further examples of the material published by this website in this blog post. […]

  2. Google Australia and Julia Gillard???? | Internet Defamation: A Case Blog - 01/04/2012

    […] has been back online for almost a year. The website, Encyclopdia Dramatica publishes material that violates our laws on Racial Discrimination. Moreover the audience is comprised of Caucasian men aged 18-24 and this […]

Leave a Reply