Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

When a friend recently sent me the bogus Sowell column, I sent it back immediately, telling him I read everything Tom Sowell writes, & that it was not his style. His response was that he, too, reads Sowell, but thought it was clever enough to pass on. So, I'm not sure Dr Sowell's rep was damaged by the phony e-mail, but I didn't pass it along, either.

Reply
Report this post

Have you looked at the companies that promote false information and use Google search as their means of distribution. These companies then attempt to profit from companies and people who have been defamed by annonymous or fictious sources by seeking fee's to raise the search engine rankings of the companies or persons that have been accused, on the internet. These companies whic often pose as consumer sites but are better labeled as revenge sites are flourishing. Yahoo, and MSN will remove the links to persons or business from these sights when asked. Google will not remove anything standing behind free speech and standing behind section 203 of the communications decency act. Google, which has a horrid form of customer service, states in a FAQ that one must have a web master remove any information or get a court order to have information removed. A teacher can be labeled a pedophile on these hate sites and the information can only be removed if said teacher gets a court order because these sites refuse to remove any post once it is written. My husbands company had a report filed about the company he owns. The client chose to file the report on the rip off report then demand a refund for services that he received 2 years prior. This as the economy in Michigan began to fall. The rip off report said they would not remove any complaint. The client wrote an apology to my husband's company claiming all work had been accomplished (Third party verifications were supplied to the client) The rip off report does not publish the apology in the high ranking fashion that it publishes all negative comments. Subsequently the client was told that his dissatisfaction with my husbands company would have to follow the terms and conditions set forth in the contract he signed and his complaints would be heard in mediation and arbitration. The arbitrator did not rule in favor of this client. This client then posted more rip off reports under alias names. His reports included me, the wife. The reports stated we were both prostitutes. The reports state perverted and disturbing sexual acts and claims one or both of us enjoys this type of activity. On a Google Search of me, my name and address are followed by sub-titles of lewd acts and prostitution, Scam fraud and other defamatory comments all of which are untrue. As a mother, School Volunteer, Community Volunteer and a professional in a field different from my husband, I have been humiliated by these incredible lies. The Rip off Report does not check the validity of these claims. The rip off report suggests consumers write a post and then make their complaint to a business with Rip off Report in hand. The rip off report will not remove a negative listing and now puts itself into a position to require an innocent victim to pay for their reputation. I have lived over 50 years. I have been married for 30 years. We have raised 3 wonderful children. I have lived as and ethical person and am proud of my accomplishments. I am horrified that one mans rage and deranged thinking could ruin the reputation that I have spent over 50 years building. I am angry that people are allowed to operate websites like this without regulation. I do not believe it would behoove any company to negotiate with someone who files a report first as the negative post no matter how old will supersede any positive posting that is made. I now have my reputation being held hostage by an unethical company seeking ransom from me. This activity reeks of the days when the Mafia offered protection to neighborhood businesses. Yahoo, MSN, and Ask all eliminated the links to my name and rip off report. Google will not. Google sites section 203 from the Communications Decency Act for their reason in not eliminating the links. The other companies appear to have an ethical belief that when their company is the vehicle for spewing vicious lies and it is pointed out to them that these are lies, they have the ability to remove the links. An article in the Wall Street Journal dated Friday, July 25, 2008 on page B7 demonstrates a country taking legal action against the search giant Google. Italy, after a 2 year investigation is expected, to charge Google executives with defamation and violation of privacy for allegedly failing to adequately control the content of the site. The executives were under investigation because they had a position of authority over the operations involved. The rip off report and other forums are not in a position to police themselves. There was a recent news report on KPIX TV regarding Yelp and Yelps practice of offering those with a negative posting the ability to pay $350 a month to raise positive postings and drop negative postings. http://cbs5.com/consumer/Yelp.Internet.ratings.2.787400.html This was shades of rip off report but with smaller fees. What I found disturbing about the young girl who was the Yelp spokesperson was her quote regarding favorable business reviews. …Yelp said they have proof that some of those favorable reviews are written by the business owners or their friends. "When we see that kind of suspicious activity taking place, we will move quickly to take action against it," How easy for her to say that. What type of proof does Yelp have in distinguishing if negative postings are not made by competitors or someone jealous of the business or its owners? In the KPIX story one of the business owners was called a racist in the post. Racist is a negatively charged word in the poster's letter with no facts to back up the charge. Did Yelp investigate or determine if those words were suspicious. I sincerely doubt it. Besides the obvious victims of sites like the rip off report, there are the silent victims. My husbands company won their case against the person who filed the rip off report. Not only in arbitration but also in a small claims court. That does not matter in the court of public opinion. Our business has lost tens of thousands of dollars. He has been forced to lay of the Mom of an autistic child whose work schedule was created to be flexible around the needs of her son. She is just one of the many silent victims out there. I understand an individuals concern of doing business with a company whose Google search lists such scathing remarks as number one and two on a search page. Although I am writing to you with my experience as a victim of rip off report, I will share my opinion that the good and ethical people who work for my husbands company, as well as my husband, have been unfairly treated and do not deserve the reports filed against them. Regulation is needed for the internet. Google is getting big and powerful and may need a watchdog as they appear to not be governing or policing themselves.