I get it’s informational. Its mentioned the bridge has been down for a decade and has been reported to Google multiple times. That at the very least should be something. You can argue this mans death isn’t because of maps directly but it’s hard to ignore the facts that this has been reported to Google multiple times.
No, it shouldn’t. It literally does not matter in any way.
It is unconditionally impossible for there to be forgivable reason to attach liability to any good faith attempt to share information in any context. Applying liability to a map is fucking disgusting in every possible scenario.
And Google would fucking love a ruling against them. It’s regulatory capture that makes it impossible for any competition to be developed because of the insurmountable barrier to entry such an abhorrent ruling would provide.
Is it still a “good faith attempt to share information” when they’ve ignored reports that their information is incorrect for literally a decade? If this was medical advice, would you still be saying that the provider of decade old misinformation not be at fault?
Why is it ok for a provider to knowingly give bad instructions, instructions that they have very good reason to know is incorrect, that leads to someone’s death? At what point does it become clear neglegencenon the provider of said instructions?
I’m not saying Google is 100% at fault for the death, as the local municipalities owe a lions share of the blame for not properly marking the danger in a way that could have saved this person’s life. But washing googles hands of blame when they couldn’t be bothered to update their routes after a fucking decade is unconcionable.
Acting on reports can never under any circumstance be a prerequisite to providing information. If every single report they’d ever received was about this one place being incorrect, they had a human review them, and didn’t change it, it would not even be theoretically possible for it to constitute negligence.
Negligence is failing to meet some obligation, and their obligation can never not be actually zero.
It’s a map. It’s strictly informational.
There’s literally nothing they could do that would make a single penny of liability valid or acceptable.
I get it’s informational. Its mentioned the bridge has been down for a decade and has been reported to Google multiple times. That at the very least should be something. You can argue this mans death isn’t because of maps directly but it’s hard to ignore the facts that this has been reported to Google multiple times.
No, it shouldn’t. It literally does not matter in any way.
It is unconditionally impossible for there to be forgivable reason to attach liability to any good faith attempt to share information in any context. Applying liability to a map is fucking disgusting in every possible scenario.
And Google would fucking love a ruling against them. It’s regulatory capture that makes it impossible for any competition to be developed because of the insurmountable barrier to entry such an abhorrent ruling would provide.
Is it still a “good faith attempt to share information” when they’ve ignored reports that their information is incorrect for literally a decade? If this was medical advice, would you still be saying that the provider of decade old misinformation not be at fault?
Why is it ok for a provider to knowingly give bad instructions, instructions that they have very good reason to know is incorrect, that leads to someone’s death? At what point does it become clear neglegencenon the provider of said instructions?
I’m not saying Google is 100% at fault for the death, as the local municipalities owe a lions share of the blame for not properly marking the danger in a way that could have saved this person’s life. But washing googles hands of blame when they couldn’t be bothered to update their routes after a fucking decade is unconcionable.
Unconditionally yes.
Acting on reports can never under any circumstance be a prerequisite to providing information. If every single report they’d ever received was about this one place being incorrect, they had a human review them, and didn’t change it, it would not even be theoretically possible for it to constitute negligence.
Negligence is failing to meet some obligation, and their obligation can never not be actually zero.