Why should victims repeatedly come back with more requests to remove items that Google had previously agreed to remove? The costs to victims seem to continue to mount over time, and they have to maintain constant vigilance for the reappearance of things they thought were already resolved. Of course, I recognize the problems and complexities inherent in a model-based system, but I suspect that Google has the technical ability to implement such a system. It could perhaps be a hybrid of a pattern
recognition system combined with information about domains and their URLs. One final note - one wonders if Ripoff Report has finally pushed the envelope so far that they could undermine the immunity they have enjoyed thus far. Section 230 protects mere content distributors, but it could be argued that Ripoff Report is now doing more than jewelry retouching service just facilitating user-generated content. By adding a comment to a Ripoff report page to imply that the court order relating to it might not be valid or
trustworthy, they may be beginning to be a content author or collaborator with the author rather than a simple publishing platform. Note : I have also reached out to Google and the Lumen Database for comment on these issues, and at the time of posting they have not responded. If they provide feedback, I'll update this article. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily of Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.