Boards censorship

cruhoortwunk

Just wondering how does Boards.ie decide to disallow negative publicity for certain industries and not for others.
Eg. I can write a review about a restaurant and say service was slow, food was cold, but I can't write a review about other industries, eg. 2nd hand car dealers. It's ok to say Meteor's Customer service is poor, but not to name a poor dentist etc.
Not trying to be cheeky, I would just like to know where Boards draw the line? Is it that bigger companies are fair game, but smaller service providers are untouchable?

dudara

Moved to the Feedback forum

dudara

El Weirdo

You might want to provide some examples, OP. It helps if you're asking a genuine question and not just on a rant.

cruhoortwunk

Well, as an example:
I had a bad experience with a car dealer, but wasn't allowed to name them.
In the past in the dental forum, people haven't been allowed to name a dentist they had a bad experience with.
Is it just because boards is threathened with legal action by these?
On the other hand, there's all kinds of negative stories on every type of large retailer or provider.

-Chris-

Most of it is down to libel/defamation.

If you post something that lowers the reputation of someone in another, reasonable person's eyes (a cack-handed explanation, but accurate-ish), then you're liable to be sued for defamation.
Truth is a defence against defamation, but you'd have to be able to prove, in a court of law, that what you said on boards is absolutely true.

Because we can't always trust a poster with a complaint to be able to back up their posts with a decent level of proof, we often have to cut the thread short or <snip> identifying details to protect both the poster, and boards, from legal action.


So ask yourself - were you complaining about a specific, identifiable person or business?
Would your complaint damage the reputation of this person or business?
Did you do anything to convince the mod you spoke to that you could provide proof that your complaint was correct?

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

So ask yourself - were you complaining about a specific, identifiable person or business?
Would your complaint damage the reputation of this person or business?
Did you do anything to convince the mod you spoke to that you could provide proof that your complaint was correct?

But wouldnt all of the above apply to a large retailer/business as it does to a small retailer/business/individual?

The OP has a fair point; there are even stickied threads to leave feedback (good and bad) about the likes of Ryanair but bad feedback against an individual or perhaps a small business seems to be frowned upon.

-Chris-

I'm sure it would. For a long time there was a sitewide ban on discussing MCD or their events.

Are they large enough? :P:)

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

I'm sure it would. For a long time there was a sitewide ban on discussing MCD or their events.

Are they large enough? :P:)

In fairness, the MCD issue is a little different, in that there was a fairly obvious reason for discussion of them being banned!

-Chris-

Is it?

People said negative things about them, they sued, we weren't allowed to mention them. It's the same principle.

If you have negative things to say, and you can't prove them, then you can't post them here. It's simple.

Cookie_Monster

So what about the wholesale bitching about "Tesco being an evil British company that's rippingus all of, putting locals out of business etc" that regularly goes on unchecked time and time again on boards?

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

If you have negative things to say, and you can't prove them, then you can't post them here. It's simple.

If that were true, your point would make sense. But, it isnt true.

Negative things are said frequently about larger businesses. Nobody provides proof. Nobody is asked to provide proof. A case in point is Ryanair, which has its own stickied thread where people have said thousands of negative things about them. I dont remember proof being posted with every one of those negative things.

-Chris-

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So what about the wholesale bitching about "Tesco being an evil British company that's rippingus all of, putting locals out of business etc" that regularly goes on unchecked time and time again on boards?

I dunno, you'd have to ask Tesco why they haven't considered suing.

Mostly, it'll come down to whether it's likely to hurt someone's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

If I post that I know for sure that Tesco are putting out of date meat in in-date containers, that'd be deleted/snipped as it's defamatory.

If I post that they're an evil, heartless corporation who make all their mince from puppies, it's less likely that a reasonable person would take that to be true, and therefore it's less likely to be defamatory.

-Chris-

drkpower wrote: »

Negative things are said frequently about larger businesses. Nobody provides proof. Nobody is asked to provide proof. A case in point is Ryanair, which has its own stickied thread where people have said thousands of negative things about them. I dont remember proof being posted with every one of those negative things.

If they thought that they could sue for defamation (and that the resulting negative publicity from trying to shut down a channel of complaints didn't outweigh the benefit of shutting that channel down), they would.

I presume if you've seen any problem posts, you've reported them?

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

If I post that they're an evil, heartless corporation who make all their mince from puppies, it's less likely that a reasonable person would take that to be true, and therefore it's less likely to be defamatory.

If there was a similar post about the local named butcher, do you honestly think it would last?

-Chris-

drkpower wrote: »

If that were true, your point would make sense. But, it isnt true.

Also, it is true.

I can only speak of the Motors or C&T forum in this case (and the OP mentions second hand car dealers specifically, so you can assume they're referring to the Motors forum also), this kind of posting isn't allowed. There are virtually no exceptions.

-Chris-

drkpower wrote: »

If there was a similar post about the local named butcher, do you honestly think it would last?

I don't know. But if a post that preposterous was put in one of my forums, I'd have no concerns of defamation and would only act on the post if other posters had issues with it.

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

If they thought that they could sue for defamation (and that the resulting negative publicity from trying to shut down a channel of complaints didn't outweigh the benefit of shutting that channel down), they would.?

But, afain, the same applies to a small business as it does a big business, but there appears to be a different rule applied to small buisinesses, as the OP has suggested.

-Chris- wrote: »

I presume if you've seen any problem posts, you've reported them?

Nope, havent reported them.

It doesnt especially bother me. It is an interesting point the OP raises though, so I joined the discussion. Im interested to hear if there is a particular reason.

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

Also, it is true.

I can only speak of the Motors or C&T forum in this case (and the OP mentions second hand car dealers specifically, so you can assume they're referring to the Motors forum also), this kind of posting isn't allowed. There are virtually no exceptions.

I don't know. But if a post that preposterous was put in one of my forums, I'd have no concerns of defamation and would only act on the post if other posters had issues with it.

Fair enough, Im not familiar with Motors or C&T.

Im thinking more about the Consumer Issues forum where this type of thing (naturally) tends to come up more often.

-Chris-

drkpower wrote: »

It is an interesting point the OP raises though, so I joined the discussion. Im interested to hear if there is a particular reason.

There's no reason that I know of, and I'll shut down any defamatory thread whether it's about a multinational car manufacturer or a local fred-in-the-shed car repairer.
It's certainly not boards policy, and you'll probably have to ask the mods of the specific forums that allow this kind of thread why they're OK with it.

drkpower

-Chris- wrote: »

There's no reason that I know of, and I'll shut down any defamatory thread whether it's about a multinational car manufacturer or a local fred-in-the-shed car repairer.
It's certainly not boards policy, and you'll probably have to ask the mods of the specific forums that allow this kind of thread why they're OK with it.

Sure, I tend to agree with you about it not being boards policy. I suppose the point of this thread is to find out why the inconstency is there.

My own view, fwiw, is something along the lines of what you said yourself; smaller, identifiable individuals/businesses are more likely to take umbrage about a negative 'review'/view than the likes of Tesco or Ryanair who probably feel its water of a ducks back. Therefore its less potential 'hassle' for Boards to allow negative reviews for smaller businesses/individuals.

One might say that is 'unfair' to the big boys, but dems the breaks I guess.

K-9

I suppose a damning thread about Tesco or Meteor on Boards is less damaging than a thread about ABC on a particular street and town.

It's tough when somebody is warning about a particular business. 3 have a bad name eg. but they've a right to reply on the talk to forum. A garage doesn't really have that brand protection.

tbh

cruhoortwunk wrote: »

In the past in the dental forum, people haven't been allowed to name a dentist they had a bad experience with.

or, unfortunately, dentists that they've had a good experience with.

Yes, it's down to legal issues.

I'll give you three examples off the top of my head, issues that arose while I was involved in modding the dental forum, both as mod and cmod.

-bad review published of a dental clinic, owner of said dental clinic contacts me and says the review was written by a former employee who had been sacked for stealing. I contact the OP, they say yeah, I was a former employee but wasn't sacked for stealing, I quit because <insert potentially libelous claim here>

-bad review published of a dental clinic specializing in cosmetic procedures, owner contacts me and says the guy who published that review owns a rival clinic. I contact the OP and say - that place you went to -did you find a better place? He says yeah and gives me the details of the rival place.

In these two examples, both reviews weren't just "I wasn't happy"; they were "this place is dangerous" and both had hundreds of views before I was able to delete them.

-Good review (x100) of a dental clinic - OP works for or owns the dental clinic.
yawn.

I would have loved to have allowed people to post honest reviews of dentists or doctors, good or bad. It's what I originally went to the Dental Issues forum for myself. I totally understand peoples incredulity when we tell them they mustn't do it - but I would say to people - there are good, valid reasons why we don't allow it. There are sites in Ireland where you can ask for that information, probably smaller than boards, so they don't get the same attention. Unfortunately, in this case, boards is just a victim of its own success.

jhegarty

The rules however seem to vary by forum.

For example here is a sample from the first page of customer issues today:
EBookers refuses to honour flight - help please
Dell Laptop Replacement Dispute - Please Read
UPC Laser card charge problem
Meteor stole my free texts...
metal tooth in tesco mince?
Netbook rip off

All name the company , and some go as far to accuse the company of theft. How many of those would survive if the business was Joe's Motors ?

Mark Hamill

-Chris- wrote: »

Because we can't always trust a poster with a complaint to be able to back up their posts with a decent level of proof, we often have to cut the thread short or <snip> identifying details to protect both the poster, and boards, from legal action.

Why would boards be libel for its customers (users) opinions? (wasn't there a case recently, maybe it was in UK or USA though, where some sort of social website was sued by some business and it was thrown out of court as it was deemed that the users of the site were its customers, and therefore it couldn't be held responsible for their opinions?)

DeVore

Once a potentially libelous comment is brought to our attention, we become responsible for its continuing publication. That is irish law.

The likelihood is that you will never see the inside of a court for your comments but I certainly will.

If we fancy taking a gamble that you are legit, your complaint is legit and we continue publishing it... we effectively gamble the future of the site. One single ruling against us and its all over, for sure. Libel payouts are almost always into the millions.

You are asking the wrong people the wrong question. You should ask the Dept of Justice why the laws are like that. Good luck with that by the way...

The one beam of hope is that while the government quite clearly doesnt give two sh*ts about Irish people, they are fawning slaves to foreign companies and with both Facebook AND Google getting sued recently for similar complaints, I think we will shortly see a rewriting of our libel laws.

DeV.

ps: we also have the possibility of taking a case to Europe (already we are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds cost but still). The EU E-Commerce Directive pretty clearly marks sites like us as Service Providers and "mere conduits" for the information. Unfortunately like a lot of EU law it hasnt been codified into our law yet....

drkpower

DeVore wrote: »

Once a potentially libelous comment is brought to our attention, we become responsible for its continuing publication. That is irish law.

Thats a fair point; but it doesnt explain the inconsistency and the apparent willingness (on some fora) to allow 'reviews'/complaints against bigger busineses, but not against smaller businesses.

Arguably, Boards is at a higher risk of a significant defamation claim from a big business, rather than a smaller business.