[AndreaVass]

Thanks for your kind words but I just wanted to say that Google has to abide by the same rules as others who “publish” information.

For example, The New York Times cannot publish the wrong photo of a person inside of an article, then demand that someone turn over their driver’s license, a selfie, and other personal identifying information in order to have the false information deleted.

Btw, there was no guarantee they would have deleted it if I had claimed it- they said they would use their discretion. If you are going to publish something, the burden is on you to verify the information. If it cannot be verified, it cannot be published. That is not my opinion but basic journalistic ethics and the law. The problem is Google is claiming their Knowledge Panel is simply a random search result and they are not responsible for it.

I didn’t want to turn over my personal information to a corporation that had already been careless in this situation.

Furthermore, it was clear that me and the pastor were two different people as both of us have been written about in the press and have different LinkedIn accounts. Also, once they saw their knowledge graph had produced several different results, they should have deleted the the panel altogether since it was clearly not working. To leave false information up because I didn’t “claim” the knowledge panel is unethical and against the law. Forget about the fact that they are currently being sued by 36 states and the Department of Justice for unfair business practices. I wouldn’t advise anyone to give them a driver’s license and a selfie etc.

[bhartzer]

I agree with what you’re saying, but one could argue that Google is not a publisher or a nees organization. The knowledge graph isn’t owned by google, it’s a collection of data that many sources contribute to.

If google were a publisher or news or media organization it would be different.

[AndreaVass]

This is the argument that needs to take place. Over the past several years, I was forced to understand what “publish” actually means in legal terms. Spoke with many lawyers. In the beginning, I was surprised to hear a lawyer refer to sending information in an email to a third party as “publishing” something.

Whenever you communicate information to a third party, you are in fact “publishing” that information, and you become liable if communicating the wrong facts. You don’t have to be a news organization to publish information or to be held liable—I just used the New York Times as an example to help someone imagine what they might think if they read a NYT article and later found out the wrong person was pictured inside of the article.

The truth is, the law applies to every single person/ entity who chooses to publish (communicate or make publicly known to an audience) information. Legally, we are all held to the same standard whether we realize it or not. Some just expect more from a company like Google, or an actual news organization. I hope this makes sense.