Google plans to change its search algorithm to prevent sites that extort people to remove slanderous content from appearing in search results for people's names
finally!— that you don't solve the problem of slander sites with exploitative removal policies by inviting victims of them to play Whac-A-Mole with individual listings. https://www.nytimes.com/...
The difference here is who has to act: instead of victims petitioning Google per link against operators who monetize their own listings through pay-for-removal demands, the demotion happens automatically at the algorithm layer. The same logic reappeared in 2024, when Google built at-scale removal of explicit deepfakes into Search safety tooling — each step shifting enforcement from user requests into the ranking system itself.
First-order effects
Victims of slander-extortion sites no longer face a choice between paying the operator or filing repeated removal requests, because the site's visibility for their name collapses regardless of whether they engage.
The extortion model's core asset — guaranteed placement in name searches — is devalued directly, removing the leverage these operators sell.
Second-order effects
Reputation-management intermediaries that profit from shepherding victims through removal workflows lose the demand side of their business as algorithmic demotion makes manual intervention unnecessary.
Site operators whose revenue depends on removal fees must either abandon the scheme or shift to targets the classifier misses, concentrating abuse around the edges of whatever signals Google's update can detect.
Third-order effects
The pattern points toward search engines becoming de facto adjudicators of reputational harm — deciding by ranking rule what would otherwise require court orders or platform-by-platform takedowns, with no external appeal process over the classifier's judgment calls.
If each new harm category gets its own demotion policy, Google's ranking guidelines harden into an informal regulatory regime for online defamation and harassment, one that regulators like those behind the EU right-to-be-forgotten regime may increasingly treat as load-bearing.
The trend: Search platforms are steadily replacing per-request takedown processes with algorithmic demotion rules for content that harms individuals, making ranking policy the primary enforcement mechanism for online reputational damage.
One of the surprising things about working on the slander series is how few people in the field, even experts, know that Google voluntarily removes some search results. (No court order needed!) You have to visit this generic url: https://support.google.com/... https://twitter.com…
Public service journalism at its best: After brilliant investigative reporting by @kashhill & @Aaron_Krolik, Google changes its policies to combat digital slander scams. https://www.nytimes.com/...
It's a cycle: People slander their enemies online, the posts appear high in Google results for the names of victims, then the websites charge the victims thousands of dollars to take the posts down. Now Google is trying to break the loop. https://www.nytimes.com/...
This period marks a watershed where Google has noticed the ‘uncertainty principle’ around its search product: any mechanism meant to create a neutral, transparent index provokes people to manipulate that mechanism to create un-neutral, malign outcomes https://www.nytimes.com/...
A series of @nytimes articles about the booming online slander industry has prompted Google to change its algorithms to stop promoting bad websites. @kashhill @Aaron_Krolik @daiwaka https://www.nytimes.com/...
Google blog post on the changes: “Improving Search to better protect people from harassment” https://blog.google/... It is WILD how much the internet has changed in a decade.
Google is making changes as a result of our series on the slander industry. It has tweaked its algorithm to demote predatory removal sites when people's names are searched and will also better protect the search results of “known victims” like Guy Babcock. https://www.nytimes.com…
Users in the 1980s: big software companies are a pain, I have to listen to music on hold for hours before I can get support Users in the 2020s: big software companies are a pain, I have to get in the New York Times before I can get support https://twitter.com/...
Reporters need to stop taking things goog tells them at face value. last wk goog said it's against policy to use deadnames but phares was deadnamed for yrs, despite many requests. now goog is saying 'we're making changes' & NYT calls it a ‘momentous shift for online slander’. htt…
Some websites have long solicited unverified complaints about supposed cheaters, sexual predators and scammers. The anonymous posts appear high in Google results for victims' names. Now the search giant is changing its algorithm to address harmful content. https://www.nytimes.com…
Heads-up if you focus on ORM. This has been an evolution for Google as it started tackling issues like this years ago. Now it's getting more serious. “Google has recently been testing the changes, w/contractors doing side-by-side comparisons of the new & old search results” https…
Google seems to be recognizing—finally!— that you don't solve the problem of slander sites with exploitative removal policies by inviting victims of them to play Whac-A-Mole with individual listings. https://www.nytimes.com/...