Search Engine Platform’s Obligations And Responsibilities For Search Results

With the development of the Internet,the public is paying more and more attention to the protection of personal information.As an important communicator of personal information,the search engine platform continuously receives requests for deleting links and deleting entry information.The Gengkun case selected in this article is a typical case of such appeals.For such cases,based on the search engine platform to use intelligent procedures to capture information,there is no subjective fault,and based on the fact that the damage of such cases is difficult to identify,the court will basically not determine the responsibility of the search engine platform.Such cases are judged to be in line with the current law,but they are inconsistent with the increasing needs of the public,and the procedures of the search engine platform are intelligent,but the screening conditions under the intelligent conditions are still set by the search engine platform and have certain subjectivity.Therefore,it is necessary to further explore the responsibilities and obligations of the search engine platform.The author believes that the premise of the discussion should first solve the problem of difficult identification of faults and the difficulty of identifying facts from the legislation.Through consulting a large number of documents and cases,the viewpoints with certain practical value are obtained.Before discussing the viewpoint,first of all,it is necessary to clarify that there are four modes of search engine platform search results: natural ranking,drop-down ranking,automatic prompting,and search hotspot.The artificial disturbances of these four modes are sequentially increased,and the corresponding obligations and responsibilities of the search engine platform.Secondly,the information presented by search engine platform search results can be divided into three categories: information should not be presented,information should be presented,information can be presented,and obligations and responsibilities for not presenting information should be higher than that of presentable information.On the basis of the above,the author draws the following conclusions: First,under the natural ranking,1.The search engine platform should not pay attention to the information,review the obligation,and bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement,mental compensation,apology and so on;Corresponding to the presentation of information negative obligation,but the subject of this right is not the information subject,not the focus of this article;3.The deletion of certain informationin the information that can be presented to the information subject after the reasonable notice,some information including The information determined by the court as infringement,the factual information infringing on the comfort distance of the individual,the excessive,irrelevant and outdated factual information,also bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement,mental compensation,apology and apology,and the damage degree should be lower than the refusal.information.Second,under the pull-down ranking,there are two points that are different from the natural ranking.1.For the same kind of information,the damage degree is higher than the natural ranking;2.On the basis of the natural ranking deletion obligation object,the evaluation personal information is added.Third,under the automatic prompt,there are two points that are different from the pull-down ranking.1.For the same kind of information,the damage degree is higher than the pull-down ranking;2.On the basis of the drop-down ranking delete obligation object,increase the non-related public characters."Partial factual information" of public figures.Fourth,the search hotspot is the media side of the search engine platform,which is not the focus of this article.