Hacker News Reader

It makes sense to me.

When Google Search is quoting a 3rd-party website that happens to have bad information, that's not on them. Blame shifts to the 3rd-party. This is Google's privilege being a search engine.

When Google operates as an answer machine instead of a search engine, the privelege doesn't apply anymore. There's no 3rd-party to take the blame.

View on HN

No that's not what's happening here.

> According to the court, the Al mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn't appear in any of the linked sources.

Implying: if the false claim was found in the sources then it would be protected speech.

There is nothing special about "answer machine" versus "search engine". You are making that part up.

You're attacking semantics. the decision is entirely about the reliability and liability./

Reply on news.ycombinator.com