How IP Laws Have Locked Up Martin Luther King's Brilliance

Why Is NBCUniversal Threatening To Report Commenters They Disagree With To Their Employers?

from the that's-bizarre dept

Mon, Jan 16th 2012 4:05pm — Mike Masnick

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:

The comment seems perfectly reasonable, but NBCUniversal deleted it, and later claimed that it was spam:

It's pretty difficult to see how that's spam, and David said so:

Following this, Quintano told David that he had contacted Business Insider to complain about David's statements.

This is the part that seems the most troubling. Why would NBCUniversal employees decide that contacting someone else's employer, because they don't like his comments, makes any sense at all. That's just outright bullying.

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

82 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:12pm

What the hell.
This is disgraceful, and all around, bad PR for NBCUniversal. One more reason why I say...

Viva 'La Revolution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:15pm

Sounds like "wrongful termination" would be a contender.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:28pm

I have no problems with the NBC/Universal guy trying to contact an employer to complain about someone, that is just his right, he can complain about anything really, but he should pay for it, he is not in the right here and we all as a society should put him in his place, just because the reasons behind of what he did, I can see other situations where people would be proud if he did it, like if he was denouncing a real criminal or something, discrimination is a tool, how you use that tool are the real problem here, the guy is a douche and should suffer and if NBC/Universal approves that kind of behavior and do nothing they too should face the music along with Business Insider, which should have brushed off that kind of thing if it was for some nonsense like it was in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:28pm

How dare you highlight how we are refusing to cover important issues! The only things that are news are what we report on.
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 thread ]
Else, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:31pm

BI
Business Insider: seriously? Unbecoming of the news trade. F-
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:33pm

1. Why is "Business Insider" employing someone that doesn't look old enough to have a drivers license?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:40pm

We all just chillens and big corporations is our daddies. You wanna get someone in trouble, you go complain to his corporate daddy. He'll get switched with an official disciplinary action right away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:42pm

Re:
"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?"

[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dementia (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:44pm

Just submitted this story to business insider as an anonymous tip!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:45pm

Re:
"1. Why is "Business Insider" employing someone that doesn't look old enough to have a drivers license?"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re:
Also, how do you know when that picture was taken? Maybe it was taken yesterday, last week, last year, or last decade? Maybe he looks older now, maybe he looks younger? Did you ever think of that!!!

(I can't believe I'm feeding the trolls).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violated (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:58pm

Mystery
It is good to see people like David Seaman trying to get SOPA and the NOAA into the mainstream news or for other important businesses to take a stand against this injustice.

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 thread ]
mischab1, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:00pm

Unfortunately I can't look at Google+ from work. :-( Based on the screen shots I'm going to guess that he linked to whatever 'We The People' is one too many times.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re:
Even tho I know that you're a willfully ignorant troll:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:05pm

Maybe we should ask Anthony. All public info on his Twitter page.

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 thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
You do understand, or maybe you don't (not seeming very bright), that the OTHER countries of the world have their own laws. Having the US pass a law to try to save them the trouble of using the other countries laws seems stupid. The US is not King of the planet, and US law allows them to deal with US things. UK law allows them to deal with UK things. etc etc etc.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:13pm

Re:
"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?"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
I already read that and I'm still awaiting your citation. Where did he say that the DMCA can be used against foreign sites? Or is this a result of your reading comprehension problems.

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Treaties_Implemen tation_Act
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:18pm

And this is exactly why I post from home
On Techdirt. If I post from work, vindictive Mike might call up my employer and thank them employing one of the many, many anonymous cowards that make up part of the wonderful community on Techdirt providing insightful and humorous content that help us get through our day.

Now time to get mindnumbingly drunk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:29pm

Re: Re:
Something copyrighted in the US isn't in the public domain overseas.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Sam Gelfand, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:31pm

If you want the truth:
I was following David's articles about the NDAA with the intention of keeping up with the issue and the ultimate goal of writing an article for a small community oriented website I (rather infrequently) contribute to. While David did indeed bring awareness to legislation like the NDAA and SOPA, his articles became more and more focused on himself rather than the issues he was writing about.

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 thread ]
vegetaman (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:34pm

Time is of the essence.
More like reporting on videos that went viral weeks ago and are already are old news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:40pm

Re: If you want the truth:
Sam's a troll who has been harassing me on Twitter. Just FYI folks. I have screenshots proving this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:40pm

Re: And this is exactly why I post from home
A bit trollish in the first paragraph but I can't fault the second at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Something copyrighted in the US isn't in the public domain overseas."

That would depend on the laws of the country in question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Something copyrighted in the US isn't in the public domain overseas."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:50pm

Re: Re: If you want the truth:
After reading the paragraph

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: If you want the truth:
David-
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:15pm

Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Because it does the same thing that SOPA does basically but without the censorship provisions in it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
On a second thought the DMCA is used to censor others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
He's not. And why are you being dishonest by making up entire paragraphs of stuff you know are not true?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:23pm

Re:
Your post just gave me an anyuerism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
You are either lying or ignorant of the subject you are gaining notoriety for.

The DMCA can *not* be used against blatantly infringing sites like what.cd, waffles or Demonoid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Well he did have a video titled

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it wouldn't.

Any country that has a public domain law uses it in determinations on content created in their particular country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:49pm

Re:
>Sounds like "wrongful termination" would be a contender.

Unleash the Lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and who are you to tell other countries how they use their public domain laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
You are either lying or ignorant because not even SOPA can be used against CD, Waffles or Demonoid, they are in other countries that don't use American courts or American law for that they have their own courts, judges and law.

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 thread ]
Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having the US pass a law to try to save them the trouble of using the other countries laws seems stupid.
Isn't it less expensive than invading?

They overreach constantly, trying to create new versions of the law that exist only in their own minds.
See:Golden Rule
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.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
You have lost your mind.

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 thread ]
Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:15pm

Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Gelf, not troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
You are so stupid that you think SOPA do something.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
SOPA is not about foreign websites because it can't be, the US has zero authority to do that.

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 thread ]
Bob V (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:42pm

Re:
you're allowed more than one period per post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kramer, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:44pm

Re: If you want the truth:
I'm familiar with a few of Sam's infrequent posts on that small community oriented website.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
Is about foreign websites?
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 thread ]
Big Al, 16 Jan 2012 @ 8:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is obviously why George Orwell's "1984", written in the UK, is still under copyright in the US but in the public domain in Australia.
But let's not let facts get in the way of your "argument".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 8:09pm

Re:
NBC undercover in this thread....sad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 8:52pm

Re: Mystery
It is good to see people like David Seaman trying to get ... and the NOAA into the mainstream

...poor meteorologists just want some attention!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 9:01pm

It's downright slimy for NBCUniversal employees to threaten people to contact their employers because NBCUniversal doesn't agree with their statements online.

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 thread ]
Ilfar, 16 Jan 2012 @ 9:10pm

Re: Re:
That reminds me, I haven't watched the latest Zero Punctuation video! :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 9:23pm

Re: Re:
thats some deep cover i doubt people work at nbc dont know how to use punctuation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 9:24pm

Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:
thanks i never heard of two of those sites
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam Gelfand, 17 Jan 2012 @ 12:08am

A Troll?
No, I'm not a troll. Unless trolls use factual information to target people who continually lie on the internet to gain an audience, and if that's what I troll is, then I may be a troll. Somebody said I don't make convincing arguments, and I think that may be true, because my arguments are usually long-winded and complex, and such arguments are rarely convincing (ask John Kerry if you don't believe that to be true).

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 thread ]
The eejit (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 1:34am

Re:
Isn't it as slimy as the treatment Wikileaks got because it upset the US Government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering how Universal has misused DMCA takedowns

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
citation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Landry (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:25am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q58nTiZrJ0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
some incorrect
ripped off

LOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:14am

So anyone who questions their actions gets their accounts revoked and their life ruined? When did NBC become the mafia?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:07am

How right you are
Long gone are the days when they reported the news. In an attempt to be in front of everyone else, they have now moved into the arena of 'setting the news agenda' . That is of course just a sliver away from 'controlling' the news or even, proven by the action of a now defunct British paper, 'manufacturing' the news or even 'interfering' with the news.

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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you'll find that stuff is only being 'ripped off' due to the excess of antiquated any-media copyfail law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:44am

this to me is typical entertainment industry mentality. they dont like what someone says or does, spit out the dummy and go running to someone else to do the dirty work! what a complete bunch of gutless wankers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:05am

If someone's perspective is so skewed that they believe that SOPA and PIPA are the most important issues facing this country I question their judgement as a journalist. I have seen comment's like David's in the past, a typical bait and switch, "Hey great article, but you aren't talking about my issue, blah blah blah...". These types of comments are really prolific on sites like Yahoo and usually involve redirecting users to a dating service. I applaud NBC Universal for attempting to moderate their comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:14am

Re: A Troll?
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.
So you don't watch NBC news or its affiliates then, right?The only thing worse than sensationalist journalism is journalism that ignores the truth, which can be done very easily by twisting facts. Something trolls excel at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:22am

Re:
Good god. Take a breath. I'm turning blue just trying to read that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re:
I neither look nor sound my age (which is a great comfort to my vanity). Does this mean my opinion doesn't count?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:12am

"It's pretty difficult to see how that's spam"

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 thread ]
joe g, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:14am

boycott corporate propaganda
These big corporations are not trustworthy sources of information and never were. They lie continuously, often through omission as that is the easiest for them. What we need to do is discourage the bobbing head masses from trusting these disingenuous lie factories at all. Turn off the Big Lies and do some work to find out the truth. If you want to lay back and be fed sound bites about the world from spray tan big haired ghouls you deserve to be an ignoramus whose opinions are essentially worthless.

As to the commenter who was fired -- sue the MFs. Make them pay a price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:44am

Re:
If someone's perspective is so skewed that they believe that SOPA and PIPA are the most important issues facing this country I question their judgement as a journalist.

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 thread ]
demented, 17 Jan 2012 @ 12:09pm

Re: What the hell.
And the revolution can't come fast enough. Not a big one, just big enough to throw out Congress, pass new regulations keeping them from taking money or being elected over and over, add stiff punishments for all ethical/legal trespasses, and bring in some new blood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:25pm

Re:
Someone posts a link to their website on every article you post and it's difficult to see how that's spam?

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 thread ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it would. If the country isn't bound by the Berne convention, they can make anything public domain in their country that they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:13pm

I think the bigger question
is why would any contributer to BI continue that relationship knowing that BI isn't going to back them up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:51pm

Oops, he did it again!
Wanted to alert you to an update of this story: "David was never 'dismissed' as a contributor. He also wasn't 're-accepted,'"
-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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:28am

Re: Oops, he did it again!
If you are on a period to period revolving contract that is not picked up you are essentially fired. It is just semantics.

Oh are you an anti-semantic as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:53am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
You have no valid perspective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam, 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:37am

A period to period what?
What are you talking about a "period to period revolving contract." He wasn't on any contract. He wasn't a paid employee then and he's not a paid employee now. All he's ever done is submitted articles as a contributor. He said that Business Insider "let him go" and would not accept his articles any more, but the CEO said that's not true, he was never let go. I'm not arguing semantics. It's a very clear instance of a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:40am

Par for the course, the msm predating on its customers and refusing to report on the fact they are sending us all down the river by seeking to destroy the internet. They are also entirely corrupted and fail to report on crimes and frauds it determines are perpitrated by the rich and powerfull upon the middle class. These massive media empires are shills for a corrupt establishment that is now in,the process of looting the middle class with impunity. They will not be happy with just stealing this one man's job for merely discusing sopa, they are destroying us all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jefg, 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:44am

Re: A period to period what?
The email where they fired him is posted above, why is it that you are the one lying? Is that all the msn can do now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam Gelfand, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:32pm

why do i waste my time?
I just forgot that i absolutely had to respond to this comment from somebody accusing me of lying about Seaman's youtube video titles: "I even Googled "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" and youtubed it, with and without quotes, and nothing relevant appears."

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 thread ]