$500 REWARD FOR IDENTITY OF TROLL

Big Bill wrote:
|Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought
|to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely
|intense any way you look at it.
|
|]IMO, you're asking for something you really don't want, unless you're
|a big fan of censorship.
|Once you ask someone like Google to start reading posts to judge the
|quality thereof, you're asking them to make judgement calls;

Yet Google appears to employ a 'relevance' formula for ranking its
data prior to publication, so how can Google say its archives are not
subject to any internal review? When it comes to coin collecting,
this whole tort might well have been avoided if the 'relevance'
formula had buried the allegations of incompetence or fraud at the
bottom of a 10,000 hit search. Of course, Google wouldn't be making
as much money if it did that sort of thing, inflammatory innuendo
and libel being so much more profitable.

|this is almost never a good thing. To counter that 'not a good thing',
|you'll need governmental intervention, which is universally a "bad
|thing".

If you don't want the government to do it, how about just having
Google's own insurance company evaluate the posts prior to publication?
After all, this whole thing appears to come off sounding in tort,
which is a civil matter (unless it turns out that government employees,
somewhere, are the ones that are libeling people, in conjunction with
Google's own employees).

|Not to mention trying to determine which government you'd like to have
|doing the intervention.

Or, I guess, which insurance company...