- 14 A B A 26. But one cannot forget the alleged defamatory materials in B Bleyer were mainly “snippets” and hyperlinks. Whilst it may be argued C D that the latter functions merely as neutral location tools that indicate where existing internet content can be found (which arguably makes the C D analogy to mere conduit or passive facilitator more compelling),17 the E F fundamental principles in Fevaworks Solutions Ltd (especially in light of their divergence from the English authorities) make the analogy less E F persuasive in respect of “snippets” since an ISP does deal with content G when generating the “snippets” that point to the underlying internet G H materials by reference to their content such that, quite irrespective H whether or not the underlying web materials are defamatory, it is arguable I the publisher of any defamatory content of “snippets” can only be the ISP. J J 27. K L I Here, there cannot be any dispute that Google Search by its Autocomplete and Related Searches features do not merely feed all historical user search queries and/or all historical web content to the K L internet user who makes a “google” search. Instead, Google Search’s M N algorithms (including PageRank) designed by Google Inc decide ranking by the number/quality of the incoming links from other pages, and M N measure the popularity, demand and/or usage of the historical search O P terms, and ultimately aggregate and reconstitute such content and terms into a few keywords that appear as Autocomplete and Related Searches predictive suggestions. Q O P So whilst the algorithmic processes are automated, Google Inc deploys artificial intelligence to amass Q R information from search queries and web content, and then present them R S 17 S T see Crookes but subject to the debate on a right to be forgotten opened up by Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Espaňola de Proteción de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González Case C-131/12 (13 May 2014) - see also footnote 105 of the Decision T U U V V