Australian court holds Google is responsible for linking to defamatory website

The South Australian Supreme Court this week found that Google is legally responsible when its search results link to defamatory content on the web. In this long-running case, Dr Janice Duffy has been trying for more than six years to clear her name and remove links to defamatory material when people search for her using Google. The main culprit is the US based website Ripoff Reports, where people have posted negative reviews of Dr Duffy. Under United States law, defamation is very hard to prove, and US websites are not liable for comments made by their users. Since it was not possible to get harmful or abusive comments removed from the source, Dr Duffy instead asked Google to remove the links from its search results. Google removed some of these links, but only from its Australian domain (google.com.au), and it left many of them active. This latest court decision is a big win for Dr Duffy. The court found that once Google was alerted to the defamatory material, it was then under an obligation to act to censor its search results and prevent further harm to Dr Duffy’s reputation.

The role of comfort in child restraint use practices

Suboptimal restraint use, particularly the incorrect use of restraints, is a significant and widespread problem among child vehicle occupants, and increases the risk of injury. Previous research has identified comfort as a potential factor influencing suboptimal restraint use. Both the real comfort experienced by the child and the parent’s perception of the child’s comfort are reported to influence the optimal use of restraints. Problems with real comfort may lead the child to misuse the restraint in their attempt to achieve better comfort whilst parent-perceived discomfort has been reported as a driver for premature graduation and inappropriate restraint choice. However, this work has largely been qualitative. There has been no research that objectively studies either the association between real and parent-perceived comfort, or any association between comfort and suboptimal restraint use. One barrier to such studies is the absence of validated tools for quantifying real comfort in children. We aimed to develop methods to examine both real and parent-perceived comfort and examine their effects on suboptimal restraint use. We conducted online parent surveys (n=470) to explore what drives parental perceptions of their child’s comfort in restraint systems (study 1) and used data from field observation studies (n=497) to examine parent-perceived comfort and its relationship with observed restraint use (study 2). We developed methods to measure comfort in children in a laboratory setting (n=14) using video analysis to estimate a Discomfort Avoidance Behaviour (DAB) score, pressure mapping and adapted survey tools to differentiate between comfortable and induced discomfort conditions (study 3). The DAB rate was then used to compare an integrated booster with an add-on booster (study 4) Preliminary analysis of our recent online survey of Australian parents (study 1) indicates that 23% of parents report comfort as a consideration when making a decision to change restraints. Logistic regression modelling of data collected during the field observation study (study 2) revealed that parent-perceived discomfort was not significantly associated with premature graduation. Contrary to expectation, children of parents who reported that their child was comfortable were almost twice as likely to have been incorrectly restrained (p<0.01, 95% CI 1.24 - 2.77).In the laboratory study (study 3) we found our adapted survey tools did not provide a reliable measurement of real comfort among children. However our DAB score was able to differentiate between comfortable and induced discomfort conditions and correlated well with pressure mapping. Preliminary results from the laboratory comparison study (study 4) indicate a positive correlation between DAB rate and use errors. In experiments conducted to date, we have seen a significantly higher DAB rate in the integrated booster compared to the add-on booster (p < 0.01). However, this needs to be confirmed in a naturalistic setting and in further experiments that take length of time under observation into account. Our results suggest that while some parents report concern about their child’s comfort, parent-reported comfort levels were not associated with restraint choice. If comfort is important for optimal restraint use, it is likely to be the real comfort of the child rather than that reported by the parent. The method we have developed for studying real comfort can be used in naturalistic studies involving child occupants to further understand this relationship. This work will be of interest to vehicle and child restraint manufacturers interested in improving restraint design for young occupants as well as researchers and other stakeholders interested in reducing the incidence of restraint misuse among children.

The Google Online Marketing Challenge: A Transnational Comparison of Classroom Learning with Real Clients, Real Money, and Real Advertising Campaigns

In 2008, a collaborative partnership between Google and academia launched the Google Online Marketing Challenge (hereinafter Google Challenge), perhaps the world’s largest in-class competition for higher education students. In just two years, almost 20,000 students from 58 countries participated in the Google Challenge. The Challenge gives undergraduate and graduate students hands-on experience with the world’s fastest growing advertising mechanism, search engine advertising. Funded by Google, students develop an advertising campaign for a small to medium sized enterprise and manage the campaign over three consecutive weeks using the Google AdWords platform. This article explores the Challenge as an innovative pedagogical tool for marketing educators. Based on the experiences of three instructors in Australia, Canada and the United States, this case study discusses the opportunities and challenges of integrating this dynamic problem-based learning approach into the classroom.

“Let’s see if you can see me”: Making connections with Google Earth™ in a preschool classroom

Bringing a social interaction approach to children’s geographies to investigate how children accomplish place in everyday lives, we draw on ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches that recognize children’s competence to manipulate their social and digital worlds. An investigation of preschool-aged children engaged with Google Earth™ shows how they both claimed and displayed technological understandings and practices such as maneuvering the mouse and screen, and referenced place through relationships with local landmarks and familiar settings such as their school. At times, the children’s competing agendas required orientation to each other’s ideas, and shared negotiation to come to resolution. A focus on children’s use of digital technologies as they make meaning of the world around them makes possible new understandings of place within the geographies of childhood and education.

Dominating search: Google before the law

For many, particularly in the Anglophone world and Western Europe, it may be obvious that Google has a monopoly over online search and advertising and that this is an undesirable state of affairs, due to Google's ability to mediate information flows online. The baffling question may be why governments and regulators are doing little to nothing about this situation, given the increasingly pivotal importance of the internet and free flowing communications in our lives. However, the law concerning monopolies, namely antitrust or competition law, works in what may be seen as a less intuitive way by the general public. Monopolies themselves are not illegal. Conduct that is unlawful, i.e. abuses of that market power, is defined by a complex set of rules and revolves principally around economic harm suffered due to anticompetitive behavior. However the effect of information monopolies over search, such as Google’s, is more than just economic, yet competition law does not address this. Furthermore, Google’s collection and analysis of user data and its portfolio of related services make it difficult for others to compete. Such a situation may also explain why Google’s established search rivals, Bing and Yahoo, have not managed to provide services that are as effective or popular as Google’s own (on this issue see also the texts by Dirk Lewandowski and Astrid Mager in this reader). Users, however, are not entirely powerless. Google's business model rests, at least partially, on them – especially the data collected about them. If they stop using Google, then Google is nothing.

Google, online search and consumer confusion in Australia

The legality of the operation of Google’s search engine, and its liability as an Internet intermediary, has been tested in various jurisdictions on various grounds. In Australia, there was an ultimately unsuccessful case against Google under the Australian Consumer Law relating to how it presents results from its search engine. Despite this failed claim, several complex issues were not adequately addressed in the case including whether Google sufficiently distinguishes between the different parts of its search results page, so as not to mislead or deceive consumers. This article seeks to address this question of consumer confusion by drawing on empirical survey evidence of Australian consumers’ understanding of Google’s search results layout. This evidence, the first of its kind in Australia, indicates some level of consumer confusion. The implications for future legal proceedings in against Google in Australia and in other jurisdictions are discussed.