Review sites are extremely popular, perhaps because they contain what appears to be real, honest feedback by everyday folks wanting to help others out with their own experiences. People tend to trust the information their peers give them since, at face value at least, there doesn’t seem to be an ulterior motive behind it.
But while the original intent behind these sites may have been well-meaning – to provide other consumers or members of the public truthful and relevant information to use in making purchasing, healthcare, educational or even dating decisions – their overall value today is diminishing. A visit to these sites reveals that they’re increasingly infiltrated with submissions by disgruntled people looking for opportunities to retaliate against and hurt a business or individual. Lawsuits are becoming more common (see the example of one physician who is suing for defamation and business disparagement for an anonymously-posted review on RateMDs.com).
There are even sites that specifically cater to consumers who want to vent. Some examples include Pissed Consumer, Ripoff Report and Scambook. Others sites are of a more personal nature, such as LiarsCheatersRUs.com and Don’tDateHimGirl.com. These sites shield themselves from responsibility for the information posted on their platforms. Pissed Consumer, for example, states that:
Q: Does PissedConsumer investigate the postings published on the website?
A: PissedConsumer does not investigate the postings made by users.
Q: What can we do if we believe that someone is slandering our organization on PissedConsumer?
A: It would be advisable for you to speak to legal Professional [sic] about the situation.
Users should be extremely cautious and critical in weighing the information they find on consumer review and other ratings or feedback sites. Some of the questions they should ask themselves include:
- Does the poster provide their real name and identity?
- Do the posters list verifiable specifics in their complaint such as dates, times, dollar amounts, images/copies of actual records and so forth?
- Do the posters use vague yet attacking language such as “scam” or “fraud” or “crook” without providing verifiable information about the situation?
- Do the posters use overly inflammatory and attacking language?
- Do the posters describe an overly negative story where everything the company or individual does is supposedly bad?
- Do the posters reveal that one of the reasons they are writing online is to make sure others know how angry they are?
(Image from Wikimedia Commons)
I think it also needs to be mentioned how blog services such as blogger or free or low cost website services are being used for retaliation as well. For example, Blogger’s TOS supports the right of free speech, which is a valid platform, one that civilnation supports too.
But what happens when an individuals wants to exercise their freedom to lie?
In my personal experience with cyberstalking you have on the one hand an individual with a long history of negative, hostile online behavior and an overwhelming amount of evidence of it, who became mad that this behavior had been highlighted and was desperately looking for someone to blame. Even though her behavior was easily proved and exemplified by her attacking of myself, she continues, as most cyberstalkers do, to claim victim hood.
Your bullet check points work exactly the same on blogger retaliation blogs, and I’ve seen quite a few. In all instances, the bully resorted to vague, generalized and inflamed name calling, without specifics and it was easy to see that they were plenty pissed off and wanted others to know it. There was also always a lack of substance to the claims, no verifiable proof and no real facts.
Samir,I noted a few points in cathper 5 where the text seems to assume (implicitly) a separateness of the Internet, even as it (explicitly) denies it. e.g.: These constraints [social, architectural, financial, and legal] originated in the physical world, but are now to be found as well on the Internet. [emphasis mine] No longer are issues of diplomacy or jurisdictional reach barriers to enforcing the law. States may simply use the long arm of the code to implement decisions and policies that can have impact even outside their borders. In the first quote, the use of now (rather than, say, also ) suggests a sense of intrusion: that we are saying there was the Internet, but then the physical world’s rules started to creep in .In the second quote, other than being demonstrably false (it is an issue of diplomacy see the Global Internet Freedom Act), it also suggests that this kind of cross-jurisdictional influence is entirely novel, which isn’t exactly accurate. Comparisons come to mind: cross-border broadcasting and interference; export regulations, and the influence of exported products (including the regulations that shaped them) on the importer country.It’s not pervasive throughout the book or seemingly intentional, but it seems like there are a few slips here and there.