GOOGLE Guilty of killing the internet

Google Blocking Legal Sites: Is Google Guilty?

In recent years, Google has come under significant scrutiny for its practices of blocking access to legal websites around the world. This has created an ethical debate concerning whether or not the technology giant should be held responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Numerous studies and reports about the impact of Google's actions on the internet have been published, but the question of Google being “guilty” for blocking legality remains open. This essay seeks to address this controversial issue by exploring the arguments for and against Google’s responsibility. Ultimately, it will be argued that Google is guilty of blocking legal sites due to its influence over the internet’s information gateways and its implications on freedom of expression.

One of the primary arguments in favor of Google responsibility is its role and power as a private corporation. Given its status at the top of the internet hierarchy, Google exercises a great deal of control over both its own products and those of its competitors. Moreover, the judgment of what is or is not legal is often left incredibly subjective and subject to change over time. For example, some governments have blocked websites related to the climate change debate, which has created a situation whereby the ‘’facts’’ surrounding this debate are not accurately conveyed to the public (Vinjamuri, 2016). In other words, Google has the power to decide which sites can be accessed by people around the world, which puts them in a position of significant influence and responsibility.

The available evidence from recent reports has also demonstrated Google has been guilty of blocking access to legal sites. For instance, an Amnesty International report from 2016 has highlighted how Google had previously blocked access to sites containing content related to LGBT rights (Vinjamuri, 2016). This particular case provides an example of how a particular worldview can be overridden by the algorithm of a private company, which has the power to shape people’s understanding of certain issues and even impact human rights.

In addition to this, there are also ethical implications surrounding Google’s blocking of websites, as it undermines the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right which underpins any democratic system, and it is difficult to argue that Google is not taking away this right when it blocks access to certain websites. Furthermore, the power which the corporation has to censor sites gives it an almost state-like power to determine what is and is not acceptable speech. This has far-reaching implications on the information which is presented to users, allowing it to favor certain topics over others depending on its preferences. As such, it can be argued that Google should be held accountable for its actions, as its influence over the internet’s information gateways has far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and the spread of knowledge.

In conclusion, Google’s actions of blocking legal sites are found to be guilty in view of its influence over the internet.

Google’s decision to block certain legal websites on its search engine has received a great deal of attention recently, with many questioning the legality of this action. Unless these sites contain explicit illegal content, it can be argued that Google is guilty of censorship by blocking access to legal websites. This essay will delve into the legal implications of Google’s actions and the implications for the freedom of information. 

The main legal issue raised by Google’s decision to block legal websites is whether it constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. Google’s mission to make the world’s content widely accessible is well-known, yet by blocking legal websites, it seems to go against this stated mission. In fact, the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” Therefore, by blocking access to legal content, Google may be encroaching on this fundamental human right.

In addition to the freedom of expression, Google’s actions may also have less direct implications for the freedom of information. If a search engine is blocking access to legal content, it may lead to a erosion of the ability to freely share knowledge and information, including important political and social discourse. Furthermore, these actions could potentially create a ‘filter bubble’, where users are only able to view the content that the search engine deems pertinent, rather than having access to a full range of content. 

Finally, it has been argued that Google’s decision to block access to legal websites is a violation of trade and antitrust laws. Google is the dominant search engine provider, controlling around 90% of the market share of search engine queries. By blocking access to legal websites, Google could be creating an unfair competitive advantage and adversely affecting the interests of its competitors. 

In conclusion, while Google’s decision to block access to certain legal websites may have improved user experience and removed explicit illegal content, it has also raised legal questions regarding the violation of rights and laws. While it is difficult to determine the definite legality of these actions, it is clear that Google has acted in a manner that may infringe upon fundamental freedoms and the interests of other market players.

## APA Citations

United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx 

Phillips, A. (2011, February 8). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Retrieved from https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2011/filter_bubbles