Why Is NBCUniversal Threatening To Report Commenters They Disagree With To Their Employers?
from the that's-bizarre dept
This one is a little bizarre. David Seaman, a contributor to Business Insider, claims that he lost his contributor status at the site following a dispute he had with an NBCUniversal employee, Anthony Quintano, concerning NBC's coverage of both SOPA/PIPA and NDAA. The details are a bit complex, but I've emailed with David a few times. It appears he posted some comments on NBC Universal's Google+ page, complaining about their lack of coverage on both issues:
Either way, David then alerted his editor at Business Insider, who said:
I think it might be best if we revoked your account for now. We've drastically cut back on our contributors recently and while we really appreciate your posts there have been far too many of these types of contentious issues lately.Now, there are all sorts of ways to look at this, and I'd almost be more inclined to question how Business Insider handled this, rather than NBCUniversal. The second one of your writers gets into a little bit of controversy, you cut them loose? Way to look out for your writers, BI.
So I'm not sure I buy the story that NBCUniversal is the reason Seaman is no longer a contributor to BI, but it is a fact that Quintano directly threatened to contact Business Insider to complain about David's statements. It's downright slimy for NBCUniversal employees to threaten people to contact their employers because NBCUniversal doesn't agree with their statements online. Disagree, fine. Hell, I don't even have a huge problem if NBCUniversal wants to be anti-internet and block comments it doesn't like (as it was doing here). But to then threaten to impact someone's livelihood because you don't like their comments? That's just bullying.
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: anthony quintano, bullying, david seaman, overreaction
Companies: business insider, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What the hell.
Viva 'La Revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unleash the Lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we would have liked to cover these issues but we had to bump them so we could spend 5 minutes covering a video of puppies that went "viral", how dare you question our power an authority on these issues!
Of course they meant to say these things once they were firmly in control under SOPA/PIPA et al, so they just got a little ahead of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time is of the essence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How right you are
If any of us think that the definition of 'news' is anything other than 'generates revenue', we are sadly deluding ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Why is this David person going on NBC's website and lying about the DMCA being able to be used against foreign pirate sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
David: "Why do these companies need SOPA? There's already an abundance of options available to companies who want unauthorized distribution of their content tackled (DMCA)"
He's a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Considering how Universal has misused DMCA takedowns, we have a prime example of the harm this type of law will cause. They overreach constantly, trying to create new versions of the law that exist only in their own minds.
Creating a giant firewall for the US is completely against what the US government preaches for everyone else, and pretty much shits on the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See:Golden Rule For me, as an IT professional, this is not even the scary part. They want to put up a firewall that doesn't block hackers and on top of that, fuck with DNSSEC. Allowing these butt puppets to make laws concerning internet access is like giving a 2 year old a footlocker full of hand grenades.After all, just because 30 Heifers agree, doesn't mean it's OK, or should even be tolerated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh look, it's another willfully blind freetard complaining about some incorrect DMCA takedowns while ignoring the fact that content is being shamelessly ripped off every hour due to the lack of contemporary internet copyright law.
What an effective and convincing rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ripped off
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Treaties_Implemen tation_Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A: Seriously? What does this question have to do with anything?
B: Can you post a link to your picture so that we can judge you by your apparent age? Otherwise, no fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(I can't believe I'm feeding the trolls).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it makes you feel any better, this troll is irritating me too. I've stopped myself answering four or five times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He obviously meant with in reason, which trying to force non-US site into following US copyright law is blatantly not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The US has no redress for sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid, etc right now. And you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That would depend on the laws of the country in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any country that has a public domain law uses it in determinations on content created in their particular country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But let's not let facts get in the way of your "argument".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IF the country in question isn't a signatory to the Berne copyright agreement then it most certainly is in the public domain in that country just as English work, for example, was before the United States signed on not all that far back and US publishers reprinted the work of English authors without remitting as much as a penny to them or their English publisher.
United States law does NOT apply extra-territorially. There are cases where under treaty some laws that are in line with the treaty are respected in other countries. Outside of that U.S. law applies only in the United States, it's possessions and territories. Nowhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mystery
He clearly seems to have annoyed them in some way. It seems odd to ban him, unban him and then complain to his employer who seems to have agreed even if to keep NBC happy. He was using a business account it seems.
Beyond that then since I did not see this full exchange I can't say for sure what has gone on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mystery
...poor meteorologists just want some attention!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand, that comment is very pertinent and doesn't come across as spammy at all. On the other hand, if he put essentially the same comment on every single article it sure would feel like spam to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthony Quintano
@AnthonyQuintano
Senior Community Manager for @NBCNews.
Track my health at @AQhealth.
Email: Anthony.Quintano@nbcuni.com
Phone: (212) 413-5364
http://www.anthonyquintano.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is exactly why I post from home
Now time to get mindnumbingly drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is exactly why I post from home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want the truth:
First, he was banned from Twitter for spamming when he repeatedly tweeted the same text and the same link to his articles over and over again. They explained this to him directly, but he insisted that Twitter was lying and he was the victim of censorship -- saying they only banned him (the ban was later lifted, btw) because he dared to write about the NDAA. Even though a quick search on Twitter reveals that there are is a huge amount of anti-NDAA sentiment on Twitter and there is not a single instance of anybody being banned for NDAA content.
Then the same thing happened on NBC's Google+ page and David once again alleged that NBC was trying to silence him and another user. He encouraged his readers to flood NBC's page with NDAA comments on every article, which many did -- without being banned.
David is currently trying to bring attention to his cause by posting Youtube videos with titles such as "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" to mislead people into hearing his information.
And by the way, not once in the weeks that Mr. Seaman discussed the NDAA in his column did he ever present a factual argument to back up his claims of what the bill would lead to. This is not a reporter we're talking about, this is an attention whore.
I'm writing this not because I support the NDAA (which prevents Guantanamo from being closed and codifies the practice of indefinitely detaining suspected Al Qaida members, both of which I disagree with) but because the internet is overflowing with people like David who would rather become famous with lies than encourage change with the truth. And I loathe those kind of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you want the truth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you want the truth:
"David is currently trying to bring attention to his cause by posting Youtube videos with titles such as "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" to mislead people into hearing his information."
I sense that his post is satire. Either that, or he is drunk and has gone so far into the field of making things up that he's become delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Why are you being intellectually dishonest and suggesting the DMCA provides content holders with redress against sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
The DMCA can *not* be used against blatantly infringing sites like what.cd, waffles or Demonoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
SOPA can only be used against property inside the US and that is it, who is inside the US?
All the tech giants that have business overseas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
SOPA is only about foreign websites. It was drafted specifically for sites such as what.cd, Waffles and Demonoid.
I have no idea how you could be this misinformed.
oh wait, yes I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
What the American government will do?
Send troops to invade the country to shutdown a website?
To force others you either have some leverage or you use force, since America is losing the economic leverage that leaves only force to be used and I don't think the American government is willing to start a war to defend American IP laws in foreign lands.
So that leaves the question how it plans to target those websites?
Attacking American business that supposedly do business with them, because American law can't be enforced overseas it can't do nothing about a foreign website, what it can do is try to close the doors inside America is like closing the windows to try and keep bad people out without going after them and bring them to justice, how is that helpfull?
You don't deal with the problem and in fact you end up limiting yourself, in fact you lost if you need to do that, the other won already, they command the places you can be and force you to stay inside at all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Please explain how SOPA will target them, I dare you explain how they will be affected by American law in other countries.
They won't, what that law does is target American business to try and target them by proxy in the hopes that "rogue websites" will be affected.
Oh that is smart shoot at your own feet hoping it will hurt the other guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
American law doesn't extend beyond American borders because you say so, other countries don't have American courts, so what is that you think SOPA will do to overseas websites that it will make them stop doing business?
Block them in America? people just go around the blocks.
Making American companies not do business with them? They don't care there are ways around that like proxy companies and institutions that receive the money and don't trace back to them. Is the American government going to reform LLC's and their entire financial system?
Because that is what it would take to make American companies not work with any unlawful entity. Just take a look at how drug cartels funnel money through the American banks to theirs. But really, I wouldn't even bother American companies are not the only financial institutions in the world and there are alternative currencies in place already and they could become something else if idiots start trying to block global trade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
I even Googled "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" and youtubed it, with and without quotes, and nothing relevant appears. I even went to David's BI and Google+ account
https://plus.google.com/104621204832216628958/posts
http://www.businessinsider.com/aut hor/david-seaman
and spent some time reading many of the info and postings there and clicking through stuff and absolutely nothing you say checks out.
So either your post is satire or you are so delusional that you actually believe someone might believe your lies. The later doesn't make IP extremists look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Megan Fox And Lady GaGa, This ISN'T Sexy: NDAA Is Treason!!
https://plus.google.com/104621204832216628958/posts/LRioyA78VfP
Maybe that's where the gelf drew his inspiration from.
http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/database/gelfs/images/PleasureGELF1.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you want the truth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you want the truth:
The thing to keep in mind about Sam is that he’s extraordinarily opinionated, often thinks he’s made a convincing case when he hasn’t, and seems to only consider people to be telling the "truth" when they agree with his point of view (no matter what evidence is offered to the contrary).
And I don’t loathe those kind of people, they’re certainly entitled to be that way if they choose, just thought I’d put his comments in perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is it as slimy as as web hosting services refusing to continue to Creative America because of its political position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Troll?
I admire David in some respects, because he is tenacious unrelenting, which often lead to results. But I don't think that his positive qualities make up for his negative qualities -- exaggerating, sensationalizing, and misrepresenting issues to favor his argument. If I didn't have and admiration for him, I would not be so enthusiastic about hounding him. But if he were an honest journalist, I wouldn't hound him at all.
Something to consider, David: My father and grandfather combined have over 60 years of experience in journalism, and that ranges from sports to ethics to reader's representative in a major newspaper. I may not personally have the credentials to tell you what a hack you are, but I was raised to firmly reject sensationalism and self-centered, phony journalism, and you really take the cake when it comes to self-centered phony sensationalistic journalism.
There's hope for you yet, but you've got to stop blaming everybody else for you failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He said SOPA and NDAA. I'm not sure you can really argue SOPA is top 2, but when it's now the law of the land that the military can arrest a US citizen inside the US and imprison them indefinitely without pressing charges or holding a trial, it's hard to think of anything going on now that's more important than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lolwut?
Someone posts a link to their website on every article you post and it's difficult to see how that's spam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cool, no more Glynn Moody articles on Techdirt...as they are all spam.
Just because someone includes a link back to their website doesn't make their speech unsolicited commercial speech, nor does it make their comments any less protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott corporate propaganda
As to the commenter who was fired -- sue the MFs. Make them pay a price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the bigger question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, he did it again!
-Business Insider's CEO
Apparently, David lied about what happened. He just plainly lied to portray himself as the victim when all he's doing is running around demanding attention and being dishonest about everything he writes about. Why is anybody behind this guy? He's the worst possible representative for the cause of individual freedom, because everything he does is self-centered and dishonest.
"Following this, Quintano told David that he had contacted Business Insider to complain about David's statements."
I no longer believe this at all. I realize that there's a screen shot of Quintano saying he would contact Business Insider, but nothing indicates this actually happened.
But none of that matters, because David was lying about being "let go." He is on horrible journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oops, he did it again!
Oh are you an anti-semantic as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A period to period what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A period to period what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why do i waste my time?
That's probably true, because he changed the name of the video, after (but surely not because) I criticized him for it. By the way, does your name happen to be... oh, I don't know... David? Just kidding I know there's only a 40% chance that's true.
Here is the video that used to be called "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber.... NDAA'd hard" or something very very close to that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJYnXxB0gNM&context=C30d9c7fADOEgsToPDskLkSKmjFcdiEdqHQkRmxxTg
As you can see, the video starts with a picture of Lady Gaga for no apparent reason. And just to further prove my obviously true assertion, here's one of the first comments to the video: "I was hoping to see beibers nose bleeding, But anyways good job kepp (sic) getting the word out and Vote Ron Paul !!" Or the comment left two above that: "clever, everyone wants to see bieber get owned" -kj444 (4 days ago)
I have many negative qualities, but dishonesty is not among them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]