View Full Version : The end of a anonymous trolling???
Yelp forced to give up the names of people posting negative comments about a business (so that they can be sued). This will change a lot of things in the near future I think. People will second guess "trolling" people and businesses.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/8/court-rules-yelp-website-must-identify-seven-negat/?page=all
C4
Voodoo_Man
03-08-14, 11:23
This has been going on for a while, in terms of Facebook/myspace/twitter/etc.
Anyone can be sued for defamation, especially when it "hurts" a business's reputation. Also happened more than a few times for "cyber bullying" and similar offenses.
Anonymous trolling has its place, on sites like 4chan/reddit/etc, but on website that people take seriously it can have real world negative repercussions for a business or a person.
This has been going on for a while, in terms of Facebook/myspace/twitter/etc.
Anyone can be sued for defamation, especially when it "hurts" a business's reputation. Also happened more than a few times for "cyber bullying" and similar offenses.
Anonymous trolling has its place, on sites like 4chan/reddit/etc, but on website that people take seriously it can have real world negative repercussions for a business or a person.
Agree. I think you are going to start to see more business sue to get names of people that are doing it.
C4
Outlander Systems
03-08-14, 11:25
G&R Tactical Sucks!
Nah nah nah nah nahhhhh!
; )
I am on the fence about this. That being said, I typically don't say anything on the net that I wouldn't have the stones to say to man's face.
ETA: Clarification -
My issue regarding the anonymity factor, is that, in a world the internet makes small, having your name out there can afford some nut job a lot of material to work with. A buddy of mine ended up getting a stalker at his house; the guy found his subdivision on Google Earth, recognized from a YouTube video.
You can crack open a person's privacy with the power of the internet in minutes.
G&R Tactical Sucks!
Nah nah nah nah nahhhhh!
; )
I am on the fence about this. That being said, I typically don't say anything on the net that I wouldn't have the stones to say to man's face.
LOL, ya we are married and know that we suck everyday (as our wife tells us). :)
I do agree with you. If you cannot say it to the persons face, you probably shouldn't say it online. I try my best to follow this rule. I am sometime blown away by what people will say to me online, but when I see them in public, they are as quiet as a church mouse. This always makes me laugh.
My issue regarding the anonymity factor, is that, in a world the internet makes small, having your name out there can afford some nut job a lot of material to work with. A buddy of mine ended up getting a stalker at his house; the guy found his subdivision on Google Earth, recognized from a YouTube video.
You can crack open a person's privacy with the power of the internet in minutes.
I am fully with you about the name thing. Imagine though a private forum where everyone had to put their full name, address and phone number in their bio. Only other members could see this info (BTW). How much would this change how people interact on the net??
C4
Outlander Systems
03-08-14, 12:01
LOL, ya we are married and know that we suck everyday (as our wife tells us). :)
I do agree with you. If you cannot say it to the persons face, you probably shouldn't say it online. I try my best to follow this rule. I am sometime blown away by what people will say to me online, but when I see them in public, they are as quiet as a church mouse. This always makes me laugh.
I am fully with you about the name thing. Imagine though a private forum where everyone had to put their full name, address and phone number in their bio. Only other members could see this info (BTW). How much would this change how people interact on the net??
C4
Too true.
I think the internet would be a kinder, gentler place. Anonymity works like psychological SAPI plates.
It's a catch-22, to a large extent. Disclosure breeds better behavior, and you've gotta own what you say more; but you are also out there for the entire internet freakshow to take advantage of.
I think there's a time and a place for a good bad-mouthing, but, you put it in writing - it's yours. Whether it's on yelp, or a document you signed.
I've always had the policy that if I get burned on a deal, I don't give repeat business.
Internet business reviews are a piss poor source of information. I had a Shitbird rip me off on ebay, and the guy would've bitched if I paid him to buy my stuff. There ain't no pleasing everybody, and you're ALWAYS going to get "that guy" as a customer or client.
Eurodriver
03-08-14, 12:22
I would be cool with an internet where everyone knew who everyone else was. If the freak shows had their info out there too it would lessen the issues mentioned above. This is impossible however.
Heavy Metal
03-08-14, 12:43
This assumes their whole e-identity isn't a Potemkin Village all the way down. And then they are going to be going to the ISP and chasing IPs.
Assuming they aren't using a proxy.
If somebody really wants to be anonymous, they can certainly make it hard enough that short of national level resources, it is a practical impossibility to discover their ID.
Moose-Knuckle
03-08-14, 12:49
My wife is currently going through something similar. She recently had to terminate an employee. Now said former employee is creating bogus accounts on LinkedIn, et al. and cyber stalking her. Said former employee has filed bogus complaints against her and her company with the BBB. Her attorney is now involved and they are pursuing said former employee to the furthest extent of the law.
BoringGuy45
03-08-14, 12:52
Anonymity has its pros and cons. On one hand, if a business is good, the majority feedback should be good regardless of whether or not the person posts under their name or a user name. Also, if a business is truly bad or dishonest, a person should have the ability to report it to others who want to know the honest truth about it without fearing some kind of retaliation. On the other hand...well, that's already been discussed; false accusations and defamation when a person can't be identified.
It really looks like the age of internet anonymity is coming to an end. There are very few news, review, or entertainment sites where one can still sign up under a user name or post as a guest. Most require you to use your Twitter account, Facebook profile, or Google profile.
Heavy Metal
03-08-14, 13:00
And it is absolutely no trouble to create a fake Facebook Profile, Google Profile or Twitter Account.
The main reason they are requiring those is it makes signing up and posting far easier than maintain a separate account for each site.
BoringGuy45
03-08-14, 13:32
And it is absolutely no trouble to create a fake Facebook Profile, Google Profile or Twitter Account.
The main reason they are requiring those is it makes signing up and posting far easier than maintain a separate account for each site.
That's true, but even those sites are more intrusive (which will no doubt lead to an exodus). Facebook and Google have been asking for people's phone numbers "to secure their account" and it's optional now, but you know it'll be mandatory in the next year or so. I did try and create an anonymous account mostly because, well, I don't want my name out there for EVERYONE to see. I forget which site it was, but when I tried to register, it denied me and asked that I scan a copy of my driver's license and email it to them for confirmation.
My wife is currently going through something similar. She recently had to terminate an employee. Now said former employee is creating bogus accounts on LinkedIn, et al. and cyber stalking her. Said former employee has filed bogus complaints against her and her company with the BBB. Her attorney is now involved and they are pursuing said former employee to the furthest extent of the law.
But there is a big difference between getting to the bottom of a person who is acting like that and doing something illegal, and a company trying to go after peole who didn't like their product or service.
Voodoo_Man
03-08-14, 13:49
But there is a big difference between getting to the bottom of a person who is acting like that and doing something illegal, and a company trying to go after peole who didn't like their product or service.
The issue is, if a person makes two accounts and posts negative feedback about a certain business. The first negative feedback may in fact be true real world experience, but the second may be "trolling" and by definition defamation.
ScatmanCrothers
03-08-14, 13:56
I forget which site it was, but when I tried to register, it denied me and asked that I scan a copy of my driver's license and email it to them for confirmation.
Gunbroker hit me with this one and I didn't care enough about joining the site to go that far. The same will go for any other public/private forum or online marketplace that requires that kind of personal info. If I can't control or verify just where that information is going or where its being stored then it's not worth it for me.
Too true.
I think the internet would be a kinder, gentler place. Anonymity works like psychological SAPI plates.
It's a catch-22, to a large extent. Disclosure breeds better behavior, and you've gotta own what you say more; but you are also out there for the entire internet freakshow to take advantage of.
I think there's a time and a place for a good bad-mouthing, but, you put it in writing - it's yours. Whether it's on yelp, or a document you signed.
I've always had the policy that if I get burned on a deal, I don't give repeat business.
Internet business reviews are a piss poor source of information. I had a Shitbird rip me off on ebay, and the guy would've bitched if I paid him to buy my stuff. There ain't no pleasing everybody, and you're ALWAYS going to get "that guy" as a customer or client.
I have been an online dealer since 2001. I have learned that I could hand some people a bar of Gold and they would complain (online).
If you are man enough to bad mouth someone or a company, then be man enough to sign your real name. Only cowards hide behind fake screen names (ya I said it).
C4
I remember when Vector was upset by a gun review I did about their product and they informed me that the only reason they weren't going to sue me is because technically everything I said was accurate and I posted pictures to back up my comments.
Generally a bad call - if it was affecting traffic or usefulness of the website, then anonymity would have been removed. If yelp and the like cared to, they could do some magical thing called masking the results from non-verified users; if you do enough business online, you'll get negative comments, exactly like Grant just mentioned. What amazes me is people willing to put faith into anonymous and unsubstantiated media of any kind, but then again, if people were clever enough to ignore this, where would be no Democratic party...
Voodoo_Man
03-08-14, 16:13
Just for the record, those of us who use handles and not our real names may have other considerations which require anonymity, such as mil, le or gov connections.
I remember when Vector was upset by a gun review I did about their product and they informed me that the only reason they weren't going to sue me is because technically everything I said was accurate and I posted pictures to back up my comments.
In the Yelp case, the people leaving bad reviews of the company had NEVER used the product! I think that is entirely fair for that company to sue those people and I hope they run them into the ground.
Many (as in 98%) of anonymous "bad reviews" come from people simply regurgitating something they heard or read (not from any first hand experience).
C4
Generally a bad call - if it was affecting traffic or usefulness of the website, then anonymity would have been removed. If yelp and the like cared to, they could do some magical thing called masking the results from non-verified users; if you do enough business online, you'll get negative comments, exactly like Grant just mentioned. What amazes me is people willing to put faith into anonymous and unsubstantiated media of any kind, but then again, if people were clever enough to ignore this, where would be no Democratic party...
Agree. I remember a customer once told me that they weren't going to buy from me because they saw ONE negative review (which was actually an attempt to extort free gear from us). I sent them 15 pages of positive feedback. That was irrelevant. Ugh.
C4
In the Yelp case, the people leaving bad reviews of the company had NEVER used the product! I think that is entirely fair for that company to sue those people and I hope they run them into the ground.
Many (as in 98%) of anonymous "bad reviews" come from people simply regurgitating something they heard or read (not from any first hand experience).
C4
Or worse, they are actually posted by the competition. I wasn't supporting the story one way or another, just relating my experience. The other difference was I wasn't anonymous, they knew who I was.
Or worse, they are actually posted by the competition. I wasn't supporting the story one way or another, just relating my experience. The other difference was I wasn't anonymous, they knew who I was.
Agree. A huge problem in the firearms industry and why M4C has the rules that it does.
C4
Outlander Systems
03-08-14, 20:42
I have been an online dealer since 2001. I have learned that I could hand some people a bar of Gold and they would complain (online).
If you are man enough to bad mouth someone or a company, then be man enough to sign your real name. Only cowards hide behind fake screen names (ya I said it).
C4
^ Gospel
In my 33 years on earth, I've learned there are some people that would bitch if you hung em with a new rope.
Heavy Metal
03-08-14, 20:47
Agree. I remember a customer once told me that they weren't going to buy from me because they saw ONE negative review (which was actually an attempt to extort free gear from us). I sent them 15 pages of positive feedback. That was irrelevant. Ugh.
C4
You are likely better off without that individual as a customer. I suspect they are of the hyper-picky customer/the customer is ALWAYS right mindset.
Just for the record, those of us who use handles and not our real names may have other considerations which require anonymity, such as mil, le or gov connections.
Yup. Honestly, anybody with limited connections can easily figure out who I am even with what I'm deliberately/knowingly putting out attached to this account, but it's impressive how easy it is if one is attempting to deliberately defame a company to just resort to a bit of trickery to generate real names and claim to be real people, which to me is a LOT less desirable, because false flag involves another party and still achieves current goals.
I completely agree with the largest number of bad reviews echo chambering among people who want to feel informed and regurgitating that information - I'm guilty of that even here, but the majority of internet punditry takes that to an entirely next level deal.
The better answer is companies like Yelp being willing to pull those reviews at the request of those businesses until they can get at least confirmation that the reviewer is at least a customer, and has a receipt indicating that they received the goods/service mentioned in the review. The fact that people put any credence into Yelp without these mechanics are still mindblowing to me.
In the Yelp case, the people leaving bad reviews of the company had NEVER used the product! I think that is entirely fair for that company to sue those people and I hope they run them into the ground.
Many (as in 98%) of anonymous "bad reviews" come from people simply regurgitating something they heard or read (not from any first hand experience).
C4
I get the impression that Yelp only had to turn over the identities of people who posted negative reviews but were never customers. Are actual customers free to post BS reviews?
Even for businesses that conducts all of their transactions online, it is probably hard to identify actual customers. Taking it to the next level by recovering damages in court is probably next to impossible. After all, I imagine there are a number of free speech organizations such as the ACLU that are happy to throw some cash at this fight. I'd love to hear from some of the lawyers on this forum to get a sense of the risk vs. reward for businesses that wants to pursue the issue.
This is very interesting to me since there are tons of websites where patients can "rate" their doctor. Some of the reviews for emergency physicians can be very colorful - especially when patients don't get the free tests or medications that they were expecting. It gets even more complicated for physicians since defending oneself often runs afoul of patient privacy laws (HIPPA).
Yelp has, twice, censored my negative review. I used my actual name and such. I'm not sure what good removing anonymity would do in my specific scenario, and I can't be the only one in it.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
I get the impression that Yelp only had to turn over the identities of people who posted negative reviews but were never customers. Are actual customers free to post BS reviews?
Even for businesses that conducts all of their transactions online, it is probably hard to identify actual customers. Taking it to the next level by recovering damages in court is probably next to impossible. After all, I imagine there are a number of free speech organizations such as the ACLU that are happy to throw some cash at this fight. I'd love to hear from some of the lawyers on this forum to get a sense of the risk vs. reward for businesses that wants to pursue the issue.
This is very interesting to me since there are tons of websites where patients can "rate" their doctor. Some of the reviews for emergency physicians can be very colorful - especially when patients don't get the free tests or medications that they were expecting. It gets even more complicated for physicians since defending oneself often runs afoul of patient privacy laws (HIPPA).
This is a good question. I think it really depends if it is actually true. From my standpoint, if I messed up a customers order and wouldn't make it right, well then I get what I get. If the customer FEELS that they got a bad deal (but really didn't) and then goes on every forum they can to bad mouth us, then I think I have a case. An example of this is we had a customer buy some Colt USGI mags with the dry film lube on them. Everybody that has ever handled a true USGI mag knows that the dry film lube scratches extremely easily. The customer accused of selling used mag bodies with new Colt floor plates. So this was a case of "low information" customer that wanted us to replace an order when there was nothing actually wrong.
C4
Yelp has, twice, censored my negative review. I used my actual name and such. I'm not sure what good removing anonymity would do in my specific scenario, and I can't be the only one in it.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Gold clap to you for being a man and signing your real name. Businesses (that are ethical) actually like this (assuming your problem is factual).
C4
This is a good question. I think it really depends if it is actually true. From my standpoint, if I messed up a customers order and wouldn't make it right, well then I get what I get. If the customer FEELS that they got a bad deal (but really didn't) and then goes on every forum they can to bad mouth us, then I think I have a case. An example of this is we had a customer buy some Colt USGI mags with the dry film lube on them. Everybody that has ever handled a true USGI mag knows that the dry film lube scratches extremely easily. The customer accused of selling used mag bodies with new Colt floor plates. So this was a case of "low information" customer that wanted us to replace an order when there was nothing actually wrong.
C4
My gut tells me that the courts are going to leave actual customers alone. It may be open season on non-customers and competing businesses who post bogus reviews.
Perhaps the best way to temper these bogus online reviews is to hold the websites responsible for vetting negative comments. I bet Yelp, HealthGrades, et al. would be far less likely to publish these reviews if they were liable for publishing any damaging false reviews. After all, there is little harm when a few people spread false claims by word-of-mouth. The damages occur when a website gives the false statements a veneer of legitimacy by printing and disseminating the BS to the masses.
Doc Safari
03-11-14, 14:26
Although I agree with most of the posts in this thread, I hope this does not lead to a total end to internet anonymity.
I once declined to join a Civil War reenactors forum because they require you to list your real name and location every time you post. With all the identity theft, cyber-spying, and just plain desire to not be bothered by undesirables I'll quit the internet before I post my real name publicly on a chat forum.
Bolt_Overide
03-12-14, 08:30
I have been an online dealer since 2001. I have learned that I could hand some people a bar of Gold and they would complain (online).
If you are man enough to bad mouth someone or a company, then be man enough to sign your real name. Only cowards hide behind fake screen names (ya I said it).
C4
And only morons put all of their info out there for everyone to see. There are shitty parts of both ways of doing business grant.
And only morons put all of their info out there for everyone to see. There are shitty parts of both ways of doing business grant.
We have to make sure we are talking about what happened in the lawsuit. The people that were leaving negative comments WERE NOT CUSTOMER'S of the company. So in this instance, they needed to be exposed.
If you are an honest customer of a company and get screwed, then you can do whatever you want. IMHO though, most people never get screwed (on purpose), by a legit company. Accidents happen, people lose orders and things get broken in shipping. Give the company a chance to correct the issue before leaving negative feedback.
For me and my company, I have probably been screwed by a manufacturer that we rep for several times over. To date, we have never written a negative feedback for anyone (customer or company). Why? I like to give people (and companies) that benefit of the doubt. Everyone makes a mistake from time to time. The thing you have to ask yourself was, was their error intentional? Did they TRY to steal your money or ship you a broken product? If the answer is no, then give them a pass.
C4
This is a double edged sword: it's not right to bad mouth people who haven't done anything to "hurt" you but at the same time people should be free to speak their minds in any manner they choose. Some thing that takes us closer to Internet ID is not a good thing.
The Internet is a dangerous tool because it allows for a free flow of information. Much of it can be crap, but a lot can be very useful. The Internet is also a very dangerous place. Identity theft and all sorts of other activities that put people in real danger can happen due to poor PERSEC. We teach our children to never give out their names, locations...cause of the dangers associated with that. Take people's ability to protect their privacy and physical being away and who benefits? It's definitely NOT the general public.
Contrary to popular belief I have every right to express both fact and opinion in as many ways as I see fit. If Grant messes up my order I have every right to go to every board and Facebook page I see fit and tell my story. If I feel Grant screwed me I have a right to express that opinion. Similarly Grant has the right to opine that I'm deranged lunatic.
In cases where people are accused of trolling (multiple accounts to target someone) the accusers need to offer specifics as to which posts and why they are to be considered trolls. There should NOT be any wiggle room for blanket searches.
IMO the actions of a few should rarely be used to justify an action against the many. I'd rather not see this become a spring board for more control of the Internet.
This is a double edged sword: it's not right to bad mouth people who haven't done anything to "hurt" you but at the same time people should be free to speak their minds in any manner they choose. Some thing that takes us closer to Internet ID is not a good thing.
Depends. Does their opinion HURT your business or your reputation? In the court case, they were attempting to hurt the companies profits by leaving FALSE feedback (as they were never customers to begin with). That is what we are talking about.
Contrary to popular belief I have every right to express both fact and opinion in as many ways as I see fit. If Grant messes up my order I have every right to go to every board and Facebook page I see fit and tell my story. If I feel Grant screwed me I have a right to express that opinion. Similarly Grant has the right to opine that I'm deranged lunatic.
Depends (just like in everything else in life). Do you have just cause? If you don't, it appears that you will be sued for your first amendment opinion (at least according to the precedence established with this lawsuit).
IMO the actions of a few should rarely be used to justify an action against the many. I'd rather not see this become a spring board for more control of the Internet.
The few? I don't think so. Companies troll other companies on a daily basis (food industry, carpet cleaning, plumbers, etc). People that are butthurt because they disagree with something the company said, but were either never a customer or never had a problem with a companies products, harass companies all the time (Chic-fila).
If you have never owned your own business (that feeds your family) and dealt with the crazy people out in our society, walk in their shoes for awhile before passing judgment.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.