Ohio v. Google: Why Common Carrier Arguments Don't Apply to Search Engines
By
Eric Goldman
An everything bagel for the brain. Substantive, layered, well-seasoned.
Summary
The article analyzes the Ohio v. Google case, arguing that efforts to classify Google Search as a "common carrier" to impose censorship or editorial obligations are misguided. It traces the legal and historical context of common carriage, explains why internet platforms like Google Search don't fit that framework, and critiques the broader trend of using outdated legal theories to regulate modern digital platforms. The author views these attempts as censorship fads that misunderstand both the technology and the law.
Key quotes
· 3 pulledCensorship efforts tend to come in fads. Censors get fired up about a new censorship theory and try it out, but the experiment tends to not satisfy them (either because it's struck down or doesn't scratch their censorship itch enough) and they move onto the next censorship fad.
Around 2020, a censorship fad was to impose common carriage obligations to restrict the editorial decision-making of Internet publishers.
This fad triggered a lot of pointless conversations about 19th century technologies, such as railroads.
You might also wanna read
Google's Search Monopoly and the 2024 Court Ruling: Implications for Search Competition and AI
This blog post analyzes the current state of web search, focusing on Google's monopoly position and the impact of a 2024 U.S. court ruling t
blog.kagi.com·4mo ago
German court rules Google directly liable for false AI search overviews, setting potential global precedent
A German regional court in Munich has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI-generated search overviews, issuing a t
the-decoder.com·13h agoGerman court rules Google directly liable for false AI search overviews, setting potential global precedent
A German regional court in Munich has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI-generated search overviews, issuing a t
the-decoder.com·13h agoGerman court rules Google directly liable for false AI search overviews, setting potential global precedent
A German regional court in Munich has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI-generated search overviews, issuing a t
the-decoder.com·13h agoGoogle's Systematic Campaign Against the Open Web and Internet Commons
This article argues that Google is systematically destroying the open web through monopolistic practices and strategic enclosure of internet
UK regulator orders Google to let publishers opt out of AI Search features
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has imposed a conduct rule requiring Google to allow online publishers to opt out of having
theverge.com·7d agoUK regulator orders Google to let publishers opt out of AI Search features
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has imposed a conduct rule requiring Google to allow online publishers to opt out of having
The Verge·7d ago
Google's Antitrust Case: DOJ Proves Illegal Search Monopoly Practices
Cory Doctorow discusses the Google antitrust case where the Department of Justice successfully proved Google illegally maintained a search m
pluralistic.net·9mo ago
Google avoids major penalties in US search antitrust case, drawing criticism
The article discusses the US search antitrust case against Google, arguing that the outcome was a weak slap on the wrist rather than meaning
computerworld.com·9mo ago