Facebook and Google have a moral duty to stop online abuse

It’s the stuff of nightmares: your intimate images are leaked and posted online by somebody you thought you could trust. But in Australia, victims often have no real legal remedy for this kind of abuse. This is the key problem of regulating the internet. Often, speech we might consider abusive or offensive isn’t actually illegal. And even when the law technically prohibits something, enforcing it directly against offenders can be difficult. It is a slow and expensive process, and where the offender or the content is overseas, there is virtually nothing victims can do. Ultimately, punishing intermediaries for content posted by third parties isn’t helpful. But we do need to have a meaningful conversation about how we want our shared online spaces to feel. The providers of these spaces have a moral, if not legal, obligation to facilitate this conversation.

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.

Public internet access revisited

In recent years the Australian government has dedicated considerable project funds to establish public Internet access points in rural and regional communities. Drawing on data from a major Australian study of the social and economic impact of new technologies on rural areas, this paper explores some of the difficulties rural communities have faced in setting up public access points and sustaining them beyond their project funding. Of particular concern is the way that economic sustainability has been positioned as a measure of the success of such ventures. Government funding has been allocated on the basis of these rural public access points becoming economically self-sustaining. This is problematic on a number of counts. It is therefore argued that these public access points should be reconceptualised as essential community infrastructure like schools and libraries, rather than potential economic enterprises. Author Keywords: Author Keywords: Internet; Public access; Sustainability; Digital divide; Rural Australia