Canadian University Has Court Order Google To Reveal Anonymous Critics

from the anonymity? dept

While we sometimes get annoyed at US courts for revealing anonymous commenters, the truth is that courts in the US seem to be much better than just about anywhere else in the world at respecting a right for anonymous comments. Case in point: a bunch of folks have been sending in versions of a story happening up in Canada, where the publicly funded York University got a court to force Google to reveal the names of faculty members who were criticizing the university anonymously via email. Amazingly, the court agreed and ordered the info revealed. Even more ridiculous is what the "complaint" was about. The University had announced the hiring of a new dean and exaggerated that dean's accomplishments. As many of the articles on this story are noting, what better way to create a chilling effect than to try to out anonymous critics. The university claims that this went "beyond free speech" and even though the complaints were supported by the very guy who was hired, the university still insists it was "damaging." I would think that outing your own professors is a lot more damaging than some squabble about over-inflating a new dean's resume.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Death Of InfomercialScams.com

from the tragic-ending dept

Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen has a detailed (and somewhat tragic) story of why the site InfomercialScams is no longer in existence, and the domains of the site are now owned by Video Professor, a company notorious for threatening online critics, such as those commenting on sites like InfomercialScams. The full story is rather involved, but the short version is that the original owner of InfomercialScams sold the site. The new owner instituted something it called its "Consumer Protection Program," where it tried to get those critiqued on the site to pay. What was gained by paying is somewhat in dispute, but one can see how it could be seen as extortion. The new owners of InfomercialScams apparently (alleged by Video Professor, but denied by Infomercial Scams) offered to sell companies "immunity" from criticism, and also would drive more traffic to criticism of companies that didn't pay up. If true, this is certainly distasteful and potentially illegal.

Video Professor sued, claiming that it also took away any Section 230 protections that had previously protected the site. As Levy notes, that would make for an interesting legal discussion, but could be troubling if it were found to be true. Either way, it's not an issue any more, as the owner of the site eventually settled, and appears to have handed over the site as a part of that settlement. However, what's still troubling is that Video Professor also sued InfomercialScams' original owner, Justin Leonard, despite him having absolutely nothing to do with the new policies on the site (or anything to do with the site at all since selling it). As part of the settlement with the new owners, Video Professor also presented a settlement to Leonard, which would have made him "promise not to disparage Video Professor -- or to host disparaging comments on any web site."

Considering he shouldn't have been a part of the lawsuit in the first place and the troubling implications of such a settlement on Leonard's ability to post what could be a perfectly legal site that could potentially host such comments, Leonard has refused to settle and is fighting his inclusion. This is a sad story all around. The original site, which raised some important questions about Video Professor's infomercial practices, is now gone due, in part, to what appears to be poor decisions by its new owners. But, at the same time, the attack on Leonard, the original owner, and the settlement demands just seem totally out of place. Especially given that Video Professor now has taken control over InformercialScams and all its related websites, it seems that the market is ripe for a new site that fairly discusses what infomercial vendors are pitching.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apparently If You Work For The AP, You're Not Allowed To Criticize Newspaper Management

from the keep-quiet,-peon dept

Want yet another example of the Associated Press' out-of-date approach to things (as if there weren't enough already)? The organization apparently officially reprimanded a reporter, Richard Richtmyer, who made an offhand comment on his Facebook page, mildly criticizing the management of McClatchy, a large newspaper chain (and, of course, an AP member). On the whole, the comment (about trouble at McClatchy) was pretty benign:

It seems like the ones who orchestrated the whole mess should be losing their jobs or getting pushed into smaller quarters. But they aren't.

Apparently that was enough to get an official reprimand letter put on file (though, the union is now protesting this). However, it shows the way the AP still views the journalism business, where actually expressing some sort of opinion is somehow seen as an offense. In this case, it wasn't even in his capacity as a reporter, which makes the whole thing even sillier. I'm going to trust someone who is free to tell me their opinion over someone who has to pretend he has no opinion, any day.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Isn't There A Fan-Use Exception To Copyright Law?

from the questions-questions-questions dept

Cory Doctorow does a nice job pointing out yet another ridiculous result of copyright law these days: criticism is considered fair use, but promoting the works as a fan is not in many cases. He talks about some of the situations (similar to many we've written about) of entertainment companies cracking down on fans who build tributes to the works that they love. This seems like the sort of thing that copyright law should encourage: having fans express their appreciation for works and sharing it with others? Yet, we don't. Instead, there are protections for critics. So you're in better position to do something with the work of someone else if you hate it, rather than if you love it. Doesn't that seem odd? And, on top of that, it raises a good question: should "fan use" be considered a type of "fair use"?

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Criticizing Social Networks Leads To Wacked Out Hyperbole

from the news-at-11 dept

There are plenty of reasons to criticize certain aspects of social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter, and it's no surprise at all that there's something of a growing backlash against some of the sites. But, what's amazing is the level of hyperbole that has come with criticism of both Facebook and Twitter over the past few months, most of it either flat-out wrong or, at the very least, uninformed:

• First, there was the totally ridiculous claim that Facebook would give you cancer. Of course, that's just what the press release said. The actual research said no such thing.
• Then there were the researchers who claimed that Facebook made girls depressed, but seemed unaware of the difference between correlation and causation.
• Then there was the claim that the only people who used Twitter were losers who had no self-identity (this from a clinical psychologist) or massively insecure (from a cognitive neuroscientist). There was no reasoning behind those claims. They just didn't like Twitter. The same thing, of course, could be said about email. Or the telephone. Or the telegraph. Or letters. How dare people wish to communicate with others! Insecure bastards!
• Next up was the pharmacology professor who claimed that Twitter and Facebook help infantilize our brains. Based on what evidence? Nothing more than a hunch and some incorrect assumptions. I'd argue that making stuff up is more likely to infantilize our brains than communicating with others.
• Then there was the study that got tons of press about how students who used Facebook got worse grades than those who didn't. The problem there? Bad research methodology. Some more comprehensive research showed the original findings were total bunk.
• And, now, the very latest, found via Mathew Ingram is some guy (who's name we won't even bother mentioning because he's simply trying to gain publicity to sell books on how to get noticed) claiming that Twitter causes brain damage. He had put out a press release claiming this (he's not a doctor or a scientist or anything -- just a "social media expert" who obviously shouldn't be hired for help with Twitter), but then pulled it down when someone who had a relative with brain damage complained. But he stuck by his complaints, none of which make much sense:

  Twitter is little more than a slick microblog service, really nothing more than Facebook's status update feature, which I happen to think is better designed.

  Er... no one said it was anything more than that. But it is actually quite different from Facebook's status update, mainly in the openness of Twitter. But that's fine. So he doesn't like it. Why does that mean it causes brain damage?

  I don't want to follow Domino's pizza on Twitter. Sometimes I just want the pizza, you know?

  I don't want to follow Domino's Pizza on Twitter either. So, you know what? I don't.

  And I think Twitter teaches younger users the wrong values -- namely, that WHAT you say matters far less than how many "followers" you have.

  Really? Then someone is using Twitter incorrectly. I never look at how many followers anyone has and I don't really care. All that matters to me in figuring out who I follow is if they have something interesting to say. In my experience, Twitter is exactly the opposite of what this guy claims. Perhaps his issue about numbers of users displays more about his own fears than Twitter.

  And it is making us dumber: news anchors airing dumb, abbreviated opinions of 15-year-olds. Who cares?

  Ah, yes, anecdotal stupidity. Well, it's just as easy to flip that around. Twitter is allowing those who never had a voice before to get heard. Will it be misused or used badly? Sure, at times. But does that condemn the whole system? No more than the fact that some folks use the telephone to say stupid things to one another means the telephone makes us stupid.

  Also, most of what I read on Twitter is social posturing, self-promotion, and nonsense -- a whole community of people trying to boost their "follower count" without building real relationships with friends or customers or anyone else.

  The problem seems to be this guy doesn't follow interesting people and doesn't seem to recognize the little button that makes it easy to unfollow anyone you dislike. Most of what I read on Twitter is insightful, interesting, relevant and fascinating. But that's because I try to follow insightful, interesting, relevant and fascinating people on Twitter. This guy should try that.

On the whole, though, it does seem a bit odd, looking at how incredibly hyperbolic and unsupported all of these claims are. Based on them, I could easily retort that "Criticizing Twitter And Facebook Makes You Stupid." But who would make widespread generalizations based on a few hand-picked pieces of data anyway?

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apparently, You're Only Allowed To Comment On Failed Business Models If You Believe In Them

from the fascinating dept

We've noticed quite a trend around here when it comes to the various business model discussions we tend to have: people who believe in the bad business models we discuss almost always start screaming about how we have no right to comment because we haven't embraced that bad business model. Thus, when we talk about music, we're told we can't comment because we've never sold music. When we talk about patents, we're told we can't comment because we've never received a patent. When we talk about the journalism business, we're told we can't comment because we've never been journalists. Of course, that's quite silly. It's like saying that no one who isn't an economist can comment on business models, because only economists understand business models. And, it makes even less sense when you realize that what people are effectively saying is "you can't tell us how stupid our plan is unless you decided to make use of the same stupid plan."

But now we're even seeing the flipside, as well. Randy Siegel is saying that Jeff Jarvis shouldn't be trusted on talking about the future of media because the worse newspapers do, the better Jarvis does -- both as someone the media goes to, and in getting consulting gigs that help companies trying to avoid the fate of newspapers. Of course, there's something tautological about the whole thing. Basically, Jarvis is being slammed for being right. Because he's right, more people go to him for info -- and to Siegel, that means he can no longer be trusted? Wow.

First people are told they can't comment on something if they're not in the business -- and now they're being to they can't comment on something if they are in the business -- and successfully avoiding the giant ice berg floating up towards them. I don't see how that makes any sense at all. Apparently, the only people allowed to comment on how to avoid the ice berg are those who are screaming their heads off about the ice berg coming towards them, but are unwilling to do a damn thing about it. It seems like those people almost deserve to hit the ice berg.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Reminder: It's Still Not Illegal For Someone To Criticize You

from the but-it-won't-stop-the-lawsuits dept

We've written about similar stories plenty of times in the past, but Adam writes in to let us know about a new article highlighting companies who sue those who leave negative reviews of their business online. The businesses complain that the negative reviews can have a serious impact on business -- which no one doubts. But, assuming that the review is truthful or just an opinion, there's really not much that can be done about it. Most companies would be better served responding to the criticism, rather than busting out the lawyers. Even if they feel the criticism is unjustified, it makes more sense to address the points, rather than pulling out the blunt threat of a lawsuit.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How To Respond To Criticism: EA's Tiger Woods Walks On Water Ad

from the nice-shot dept

In an age where anyone can speak up, and anyone can criticize you, the first reaction of many folks is to hit back hard -- even trying to take down critical info. As we all know, that's exactly the wrong thing to do. But, it's still quite difficult to turn something that's negative into a positive quite as well as video game company EA just did. Mathew Ingram has the details, but basically, when last year's version of EA's Tiger Woods golfing game came out, some users made a video jokingly pointing out that a glitch in the game allows Tiger Woods to stand in the middle of a water trap and take a shot:

With this year's version coming out, EA actually took that video as inspiration for a new ad, "responding" to that video, by showing that it wasn't a "glitch" at all, but that Tiger really can walk on water and hit a golf ball: Now that's a good response to some criticism.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Be Careful What You Subpoena. It May Turn Up More Than You'd Like People To Know

from the oops dept

Remember the VC firm, EDF Ventures, which brought a lot more attention to a negative review on the website TheFunded.com by sending a subpoena to find out who wrote the negative review? Well, it turns out the decision keeps getting worse and worse. VentureBeat has the details that were turned up by the subpoena -- and the result is more details of the criticism, but no identifying information of the poster. Since TheFunded allows parts of comments to be public, with other parts designated as "members only," the subpoena has now made the "members only" content public, and it trashes the deal terms offered by the firm and criticizes a partner who has no operating experience. Also, the details suggest that this wasn't a spurned entrepreneur, but an adviser or partner in some manner. Either way, beyond drawing more attention to a negative review, now the firm has made public even more critical info.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Talk Radio Host Accuses Critic Of Copyright Infringement... And Racketeering?

from the for-a-bit-of-criticsm? dept

Radio talk show host Michael Savage apparently isn't as open to accepting criticism as he is in dishing it out. He's suing the Council on American-Islamic Relations for copyright infringement, because CAIR used clips from Savage's show to respond to, and criticize, his statements. That's a perfectly reasonable fair use of copyrighted content. It seems clear that this is merely an attempt to bully and silence a critic. To add even more weight to that claim, Savage isn't just claiming copyright infringement, but racketeering. The reasoning behind the racketeering charge isn't entirely clear (and from the EFF's response about the problems with Savage's filings, it sounds like the reasoning isn't clear to even those who made the racketeering claim), but the idea that posting some radio clips and criticizing them could be seen as racketeering seems pretty ridiculous.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Online Criticism Isn't Just Easy, It Sticks Around Too

from the they-ruined-my-pants dept

We've noted before how some business owners feel extremely threatened by criticism on the web. The idea that anybody can become a critic and have a platform to broadcast their opinion is a scary one for businesses that don't treat their customers well. But there's another related issue here: web criticism sticks around. One blogger has noted that a post he made about how he was frustrated with his bank continues to attract comments from other annoyed customers. It's much like our post on Amazon Prime from February 2005, which thanks to the magic of search engines, continues to attract new comments every day from people upset with the way Amazon bills for the program (with some of them blaming us for it). His point is that not only does news travel quickly online, it sticks around -- just ask the maker of Kryptonite bike locks. Perhaps this is part of the reason some businesses freak out so badly when they're criticized online, and will fuel further calls from some quarters to moderate or censor user-generated business reviews and comments. But that's not a solution; the best way to deal with it is to treat your customers well.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..