Rather Than Calling The Lawyers, Why Those Upset At Bad Online Reviews Should Chill Out
from the there-are-better-responses dept
You may recall that a few months back we were threatened with a libel lawsuit over some comments on a very old blog post. We get similar threats approximately once a month, almost always about someone upset about something someone else said about them in the comments. Of course, we're protected by Section 230 from liability for such comments (though, the commenters themselves are not), but another point that we've suggested to the folks complaining is that immediately filing a defamation lawsuit may not be in their best interests. First, within the comments, they are free to respond and give their side of the story. But, more importantly, the comments in question should be taken in context. Almost always, the complaint is about some totally ridiculous comment, made in the middle of a long thread, by an anonymous commenter. It's not exactly the sort of thing that anyone is likely to take seriously.Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo, is making a similar point, in responding to some recent threats made by companies against TripAdvisor and Yelp, over reviews that restaurants and hotels don't like. Manjoo's basic message: chill out and recognize that most people aren't stupid, and that, in context, these particular reviews are unlikely to have much of an impact, because most people are not influenced by a single outlier of a review, but the general sense in all the reviews:
When we scan reviews online, we aren't looking for gothchas--outlandish, one-off tales of awful experiences. Instead, we look for patterns. We make judgments based on the themes that emerge from many reviews, not from the crazy charges that appear in one or two. As such, there's an obvious way for businesses to improve their online standings. Rather than trying to suppress a few negative reviews, they ought to work like mad to offer the kind of service that inspires a whole bunch of positive reviews.In other words, the one-off disgruntled person isn't likely to have much of an impact anyway, and if the overall theme of all of the reviews is so negative, then it suggests that there is a real problem that you should work on fixing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: context, defamation, reviews
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something on those lines so people know what those companies are really like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Post removed due to request of X company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're successful, people will complain. If no one complains, then you have failed to make an impact and you should close up shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Supreme Court Hears Online Doctor Rating Defamation Suit
Two years ago, a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee, sued the son of an elderly patient for defamation over some negative comments that were posted on rate-your-doctor websites.
On Tuesday, the state's top court was asked to decide whether the lawsuit should finally go to trial, after the case was thrown out by a lower court and reinstated on appeal. The lawsuit is one of a growing number of legal battles testing the limits of free speech on the Internet.
A good portion of the oral arguments were devoted to the meaning of the words that Dennis Laurion, 65, used to describe his family's encounter with McKee in April, 2010, when Laurion's father, Kenneth, then 84, was hospitalized with a stroke.
John Kelly, Laurion's attorney, noted that Internet sites are a "free for all" for people to share opinions and that his client's comments were perfectly appropriate. "We have a word, the word 'tool,'" Kelly told the justices. "When you look at the word, you have to ask: Is it defamatory?" He argued that the phrase, while "it clearly is not a compliment," is no worse than "calling someone an idiot or a fool."
During questioning, some of the justices seemed to agree. "Saying someone's a 'real tool' sounds more like an opinion than a statement of fact," Justice Christopher Dietzen said. Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea had a similar reaction. "The point of the post is, 'This doctor did not treat my father well,'" she said. "I can't grasp why that wouldn't be protected opinion."
Full Article:
http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=168552176
Comments:
http://www.facebook.co m/startribune/posts/527714173921326?comment_id=110848277&offset=0&total_comments=9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]