Cover photo
Rexxfield Michael Roberts
Worked at
3 followers|4,998 views


I love free and anonymous speech, but it is never actually free,m there is always a cost. If that cost is born by someone with clean hands (victims of malicious posts), then it is not an acceptable cost. But with 230C, injury is permitted without adequate or affordable relief for such victims. Congress' intent was not soley to immunize ISPs from liability for publication, it was also to allow ISPs to remove or delete others' speech without fear of liability for impeding free speech. It was clearly intended to allow industry regulation, a balance. But that generally is not the case. Google search for example may actually be liable, based on teh definition of the word "Information" as use in the four corners of CDA:

1. Google, Inc. (“Google”) is an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), and is a California corporation that does business internationally, including (insert your jurisdiction).
2. “DON’T BE EVIL” was or is Google’s unofficial corporate motto.
3. Google has demonstrated clear market share domination of for searches conducted on the Internet in the United States and beyond.
4. A Google Rich Snippet construct  (“Google Snippet Construct”) is displayed along with nine (9)[1] additional and diverse Google Snippet Constructs on any given Google Search Results Page (“GSRP”)
5. A Google Snippet Construct is a small extract from information provided by another information content provider.
6. Furthermore, a Google Snippet Construct is published by Google on a GSRP; usually as two lines of text.
7. A Google Snippet Construct is extracted either (a) arbitrarily and/or (b) algorithmically extracted, out of the fuller context, from information provided by another information content provider.
8. A Google Snippet Construct is reconstituted on a GSRP at Google’s sole discretion and control.
9. A single Google Snippet Construct as presented in a GSRP with the nine (9) other aforementioned Google Snippet Constructs is a new context because of the absence of all balance of the original ‘information’, and because of the introduction of the nine (9) other Google Snippet Constructs.
10. Google Snippet Construct constitutes new information because the reconstruction process is attributed entirely to Google which “is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [this new]information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service”.[2]
11. Google’s presumed immunity to liability for defamation pursuant to part (C) of §230 of the U.S Communications Decency Act (“§230″) does not apply because §230(c)(1)’s contextual reference to “information” as literally defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary is: “Something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture), which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct.”[3]
12. The legislative intent of §230(c) is to ensure that an ISP is not held liable on account of—:”any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
13. The United States Congress’ clear intent for §230(c) is evidenced by the reference to the “Good Samaritan” character from Jesus Christ’s parable[4]of the same name in the section heading for §230(c) as follows:”Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material”
14. The use of the quote punctuation for “Good Samaritan” in the heading for §230(c) was by the U.S Congress, the quote leaves no doubt as the Congresses intent because the biblical “Good Samaritan” did not turn his back on the victim of assault; furthermore, the character used his own financial resources to restore the victim.
15. Google’s cookie-cutter template response, which denies good faith requests by injured parties for removal of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected material, is clearly in diametric opposition to the intent of the Congress’ intent for the immunity provisions.
16. Based on fact and belief, Google has received tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of requests from parties lightly, moderately and severely injured by the false, malicious and defamatory Google Snippet Constructs created or developed in whole or in part by Google and then “provided through the Internet or [any]other interactive computer service[s]”.
17. Numerous suicides have been attributed in whole or in part to Google’s creation of Snippet Constructs.
18. Google has publicly indicated that Snippet Constructs have deficiencies:“Google tries to present users with the most useful and informative search results. The more information a search result snippet can provide, the easier it is for users to decide whether that page is relevant to their search.“[5]
19. Google’s humiliation algorithm is imperfect in that it cannot intuit moral intent through mathematical analysis, ergo,  by elevating inaccurate humiliating search results, Google is causing injury to the subjects of the inaccurate allegations in clear breach of established duty of care responsibilities.
20. Google’s Search Engine Algorithm “ALGO” is secret and proprietary.
21. Google does not publish the technical details of its ALGO for public, peer, academic or professional scrutiny, review or inspection.
22. Based on fact and belief Google has made provisions in its ALGO which cause otherwise low Google Search Result Rankings (“GSRR”) for content containing demeaning or derogatory words or phrases which are found in close proximity to proper nouns such as an individual’s name or an organization’s name, trademark or brand (hereinafter referred to as “Humility Algorithm”).
23. Snippet Constructs from Humility Algorithm search results have a tendency to display the demeaning or derogatory Humility Algorithm Keyword “Humility Modifiers” over snippets that contain less inflammatory keywords.
24. Google benefits financially through advertising revenue as a result of the humiliation algorithm, at the expense of its defamation victims, because the elevation of defamatory results repulses Google users from the person or business they originally sought, and diverts them, in many instances, to the victim’s competitors by way of AdWords displayed next to the search results.
Add a comment...
Delete Ripoffreport thru UPDATE: Ripoffreport owner Ed Magedson has been accused of numerous crimes in unsealed criminal warrant. 25 Years in Prison if convicted:
Add a comment...
In his circles
1 person
Have him in circles
3 people
Steve Lanni's profile photo
William Posters (BadForPeople)'s profile photo

Rexxfield Michael Roberts

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
Please remove Michael's name & company from the title so as not to inadvertently confuse others. BTW, please join us in our fight against Ripoff Report here:
RoR Boycott Team
In his circles
1 person
Have him in circles
3 people
Steve Lanni's profile photo
William Posters (BadForPeople)'s profile photo
Basic Information
    Licensed Private Investigator