If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   That whole anonymity thing on the Internet? Yeah, about that   (gawker.com) divider line 35
    More: Followup, Courthouse News Service  
•       •       •

12988 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2014 at 9:48 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-10 10:16:39 AM
4 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: I consider legalese something akin to Klingon or Vulcan... made up languages...


It's almost as if different professions have their own vernacular.
2014-01-10 10:13:31 AM
3 votes:
They seem to making the argument that you have to be an actual customer to leave a bad review of a company.

I don't think that's the case. I could leave a bad review of a company who gave a friend or relative shoddy service. I could leave a shoddy review of a company if they were hard to contact, get a quote from or overall gave me a reason not to be their customer. I could leave a shoddy review of a company if one of their vans cut me off in traffic.

Reviews do not have to be spot on truth. They're about perception and opinion. If you don't like my opinion about your crappy company, tough shiat. Man up and change your service perspective or stfu.

/pms & estrogen surge hitting hard today
2014-01-10 09:55:52 AM
3 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: FTA: "false statements of fact"

hmmmm... I think maybe the judge should have stopped while he was ahead...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact 

Or maybe you should have.
2014-01-10 10:11:43 AM
2 votes:
I never assume that anything is anonymous on the internet.  However, I do feel a little more secure around Fark if only for 2 things.  There are so many users here, I rarely get noticed.  I don't think I know a single user here in real life.
2014-01-10 10:11:22 AM
2 votes:

Unoriginal_Username: So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?


He would know if he had screwed customers around like that, and it would be his folly to bring all that to light, if he is a crooked business owner.  Now if he's just a bully who knows what he'd do.  But to go to such lengths - It would not protect his reputation to identify customers he really did screw over.

And if customers are yelping that, and not even lodging complaints with the business then they're pretty dumb.  He deserves to be given a chance to make it right if people are that upset.
2014-01-10 10:02:55 AM
2 votes:

Warlordtrooper: Also no absolute right to anonymity?  Be careful what you ask for because that means the government can force the identities of donors to super PACs to be identified.


remember, it's one law for me, one law for thee... so the rich are not bound under the same terms.
2014-01-10 10:02:10 AM
2 votes:

lilplatinum: HindiDiscoMonster: FTA: "false statements of fact"

hmmmm... I think maybe the judge should have stopped while he was ahead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact 

Or maybe you should have.


Shouldn't it be false statements presented as facts? Even if this is a legal definition, it's contradictory.
2014-01-10 10:01:13 AM
2 votes:

lilplatinum: HindiDiscoMonster: FTA: "false statements of fact"

hmmmm... I think maybe the judge should have stopped while he was ahead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact
Or maybe you should have.


no, I don't care what wiki says... it's not the be all end all of wisdom, nor do I care what some esoteric fuddy duddy says is correct, it sounds clumsy and wrong, and the idea can be represented much more gracefully.

false = opposite of true
facts are true

so it should be "false statement" - FULL STOP.
or; "the motherfarker lied" - FULL STOP. (for a little more color)
2014-01-10 09:55:53 AM
2 votes:
There's never been anonymity on the internet.  Ever.
2014-01-10 09:54:03 AM
2 votes:
So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?
2014-01-10 09:51:11 AM
2 votes:
FTA: "false statements of fact"

hmmmm... I think maybe the judge should have stopped while he was ahead...
2014-01-10 07:13:04 PM
1 votes:

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Now, if after revealing the identies of the person, it turns out their posts were true, then they should be dropped immediately from the suit.


Doesn't work that way. The adjudication of the LAWSUIT determines whether the statements were true. That is a finding of fact and the court has to determine it. Discovery, hearings, pleadings, etc. Meanwhile, these people get to pay attorneys to handle things all the way to it being found that the they did or did not commit defamation.
2014-01-10 01:10:31 PM
1 votes:

impaler: Rik01: Then, of course, are the comments written by average folks, who in reality are paid employees of a listed company, whose job is to fake being a user of a disputed product and deliver a glowing report.
Don't forget people paid by competing products to give scathing reviews.


Yes, there was a local story that reported a local restaurant had many bad reviews that were traced to a competitor down the street. These weren't chains, but Mom and Pops. Very nasty.

But you should be able to tell who they are in the future. They will add a line that talks about having a "friend" who had this happen to them. So they have an excuse why they are listed as a customer.
2014-01-10 01:03:09 PM
1 votes:

Rik01: Take everything you read with a grain of salt. Some things you might need a pound or so.


It would be very funny indeed if after all is said and done these defendants get slapped with a $1 fine for defamation. For the court to decide that measurable damages for a bad Yelp! review are effectively negligible, because no one attaches any significance to them anyway.
2014-01-10 12:25:05 PM
1 votes:

ReapTheChaos: I have no problem with this, if they really are customers then they have nothing to worry about.


I'm thinking they would be worried about getting hit with a defamation suit, rightly or wrongly. I'm thinking they would be worried about spending thousands of dollars, missing work, and the general stress of being sued by a vindictive petty asshole that you already wish you had never done business with.

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Yelp can suck a fart from my ass.
Posed a review of a local Mexican joint (nothing over the top, pretty straight forward review) and they pulled it.


It seems like this could have been remedied in a number fo ways without even coming withing 100 miles of privacy and free speech issues.

Like a simple "Unverifiable, Anonymous Reviews of a highly negative or positive nature can be challenged and absent any validation, removed." policy.
2014-01-10 12:05:55 PM
1 votes:
Normal people should not lose the many protections anonymous postings offer because abnormal people abuse technology to be the same stalking creeps they always were and forever shall remain.

Of course I believe no one should leave a false review, but I don' think it's right for people to jaywalk when there's a perfectly good crosswalk, so my solution is to shackle everyone.

You can still move, albeit slowly,  but it's safer for you and in case a cop needs to chat, you won't go far.
2014-01-10 11:42:32 AM
1 votes:
What about fake reviews that are positive and lies?
2014-01-10 11:25:45 AM
1 votes:

walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

They could admit it. You're just being unimaginative.

That's a laugh for a couple reasons. This thread is now supremely ironic.


pitchforkdiaries.com
What a supreme may look like.
2014-01-10 11:11:34 AM
1 votes:

Semantic Warrior: I'm in school for information security, and things like this seem to keep coming up in different courses.  I think the compromise that needs to be done is the whole "verified anonymous" route.  Take the case in TFA for instance, a third party should be allowed to compare the identities of yelp reviewers with the company's customer database, flag those that weren't customers, then proceed from there.
Using Fark as an example, if we all had to submit our actual identities to the site, but to each other we remain anonymous unless some breach warrants disclosure.
Basically, even though you can be sitting at home, being online shouldn't be much different than being out in public.  When it comes to free speech, I understand the precedents of SCOTUS cases that protect groups like the NAACP from having to publicize all of their members, but that's not the same as protecting the identities of petition signers for things like ballot referendums.

I do believe the saying is "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it" not "Let everyone else defend it while you run and hide"  nor "Allow whatever derp to spew forth from your mouth that you wish with no accountability."
What would have become of the Protestant Reformation had Martin Luther coward behind a pseudonym, rather than standing up for his own words?


Ah yes, another law change for outdated business model. I will resurrect my buggy whip business by law.
2014-01-10 11:10:51 AM
1 votes:
An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

And some people online have good reasons not to give their real  name and photos, namely stalkers.  Judges don't know what goes on in everyone's life and they're just as short-sighted, or prescient as anyone.

In fact, do you know what you call a lawyer who couldn't pass the bar?

Your Honor.
2014-01-10 10:44:06 AM
1 votes:

vharshyde: Statement: A thing you say. 
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true. 

Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel. 

In the meantime, this is a discovery case. Yelp releases the data of the comments(IP addresses, etc), which, let's face it, most idiots on the web aren't smart enough to use a proxy, or are dumb enough to use one of the listed proxies on and among any of the various troll sites around the web that just happen to be FBI sting spots(Yeah, how many idiots have you seen in the so-called "Anonymous" groups that do something huge and get arrested AFTER saying they were behind seven shiatty internet memes). Which means that the business owner can get a hold of their personal data via their ISP and go after the person. Which makes this pretty easy.

From there, the case is a simple open/shut. Did the customer in question actually have business with the owner? A simple credit card statement can prove that. No? Then yes, this lawsuit is valid. Yes? Then the case gets thrown out. And if it's one user that Was a customer, but is falsely inflating the business's reputation in a bad light by posting several reviews? Well, there's a case for that too.


How much will this cost? Thousands? Who will start up a company or companies specifically targeting this situation? How much more money will this country send into the shiatter?

This country is a joke.
2014-01-10 10:38:18 AM
1 votes:
They can protect their reputation the same way every other shiatty business on Yelp does it: by paying Yelp a fee to delete the less ideal comments.

But it sounds like it would leave this particular business's Yelp page blank. Sucks to be them.
2014-01-10 10:32:20 AM
1 votes:
Over the years I've worked in restaurants, we've used negative reviews as fire to become totally unimpeachable and excellent. If there was an aspect of the review we could change, we did it for everybody. Some people are a little intimidated by the notion of a live conversation, so they post online because it makes them more comfortable. Reviews are a good source of information because of that. If it was just complaining, people who came into the place would know the reviewer was a nut job because of how good it actually was.

My current boss posts her personal email address on all the local ones.

This carpet cleaning business should use this opportunity to get better at cleaning carpets.
2014-01-10 10:31:50 AM
1 votes:
Craigslist laptop for cash
Tails
Unsecured public WiFi
Paid for VPN
Tor
Never use/give real info

Anonymity.
2014-01-10 10:28:33 AM
1 votes:
It's simply really:

img.fark.net
2014-01-10 10:24:54 AM
1 votes:

JoieD'Zen: Unoriginal_Username: So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?

In this case I agree with his ruling. Cyber defamation and bullying are out of control right now and people should be held accountable for the damage they cause.


Horse crap.
There is no such thing as "cyber bullying".
Want to not be "bullied" anymore?  Click a button, problem solved.
I wish "bullying" was that easy to deal with when I was a kid, rolling around in the mud.

/I hope you don't feel bullied by my response
2014-01-10 10:18:44 AM
1 votes:
The assumption is that the statement was intended as factual unless it is obviously satirical. And someone generally makes a judgment about whether that's the case... You know... Someone judges that. They JUDGE that. Get the hint yet?
2014-01-10 10:15:04 AM
1 votes:
Statement: A thing you say. 
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true. 

Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel. 

In the meantime, this is a discovery case. Yelp releases the data of the comments(IP addresses, etc), which, let's face it, most idiots on the web aren't smart enough to use a proxy, or are dumb enough to use one of the listed proxies on and among any of the various troll sites around the web that just happen to be FBI sting spots(Yeah, how many idiots have you seen in the so-called "Anonymous" groups that do something huge and get arrested AFTER saying they were behind seven shiatty internet memes). Which means that the business owner can get a hold of their personal data via their ISP and go after the person. Which makes this pretty easy.

From there, the case is a simple open/shut. Did the customer in question actually have business with the owner? A simple credit card statement can prove that. No? Then yes, this lawsuit is valid. Yes? Then the case gets thrown out. And if it's one user that Was a customer, but is falsely inflating the business's reputation in a bad light by posting several reviews? Well, there's a case for that too.
2014-01-10 10:10:37 AM
1 votes:
Yelp is a racket, plain and simple.

I get a call from them every six months or so wanting me to advertise with them.  "Put my flagged reviews back up, and we'll talk."  "Yadda yadda algorithm, born fully formed from on high yadda yadda" "Tell me how you are different from a protection racket. 'Nice reviews; shame if something happened to them.'" "I'm gonna go ahead and end this call."

EVERY time.

Yelp can lick my asshole.
2014-01-10 10:10:11 AM
1 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: no, I don't care what wiki says... it's not the be all end all of wisdom, nor do I care what some esoteric fuddy duddy says is correct


How about a legal dictionary?   http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statement+of+facts

Sorry, just because you disagree with how something sounds in your gut does not mean that someone using a commonly accepted, for centuries, legal term in the proper way doesn't imply that they should "quit while they are ahead"
2014-01-10 09:59:24 AM
1 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: I could get behind Boxy if ya know what I mean and I think ya do... well... if she shut up anyway.


Yeah, like that'll ever happen.
2014-01-10 09:55:23 AM
1 votes:
Relevant (and also my desktop as I write this): http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20100707
2014-01-10 09:53:57 AM
1 votes:
OH NO!

NOW SOMEONE WILL FIGURE OUT MY NAME AND WHAT CITY I LIVE IN!

*runs away*
2014-01-10 09:52:00 AM
1 votes:
bfolder.ru
2014-01-10 09:51:14 AM
1 votes:
Oh no! this could just RUIN trolling!They must be stopped!
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report