FCC Wants To Hear Your Thoughts On Crappy US Broadband

from the reality-based dept

One consistent point of pride for the Trump FCC, like many Trump agencies, was its active disdain for real world data. It didn't matter how much data showed that US broadband was expensive and spotty due to monopolization (and there's a lot of data clearly proving that point), the Trump FCC didn't care. It didn't matter that surveys showed that net neutrality was popular among consumers. Guys like Ajit Pai believed that the US broadband sector was perfectly healthy and competitive and you make things even more wonderful by gutting already fairly feckless regulatory oversight even further.

In short, some people have an ideology and refuse to accept any data that challenges it, no matter how clear it is. The Ajit Pai Donald Trump FCC was the poster child for this mindset. Yeah, it can be hard for anybody to be open to changing your opinions in the face of new or shifting data, but the Trump FCC didn't try. Like, ever. It blacklisted all reporters that even remotely criticized policy. It actively embraced bogus data from lobbyists. It routinely and knowingly spread absolute, disproven falsehoods. It wasn't interested in real world data. It simply wasn't.

It's not entirely clear yet what the Biden FCC is going to look and behave like, as the Biden camp still hasn't yet fully staffed the agency with a third Commissioner and possible permanent boss (kind of a problem during a pandemic busy highlighting how essential broadband is to... everything). But there are indications it's going to at least listen to the data and objective experts instead of just, you know, making shit up completely.

Whereas the Pai FCC basically killed a program that used real world data collected from real consumer routers to measure consumer broadband experience (again, because it revealed truths that clashed with Pai's ideology), the new FCC says it's making real world consumer experiences a priority again. That includes a new portal and a new form US broadband users can use to explain their experiences with customer service, prices, speeds, availability, and other sticking points in a highly monopolized business sector.

That data will then, purportedly, be used to actively inform policymaking (crazy!):

"As the Commission develops the tools needed to enhance the accuracy of its existing broadband maps, this new form provides a way for consumers to share their broadband experiences. Stories shared by consumers will help to inform the work of the FCC’s crossagency Broadband Data Task Force.

Of course having access to real world data doesn't mean that data will be used to seriously fix the problems in telecom, most of which orbit around two main problems: monopolization and state and federal corruption. Most of the Biden FCC's decisions so far have been relatively basic and unsurprising, and until the Biden administration gets around to appointing a permanent boss it remains stuck in partisan gridlock (thanks to that last minute appointment of Trump BFF Nathan Simington to the Commission). Until that's remedied, it's hard to determine just how tough this new FCC will actually be.

Either way, it's still essential to have real world data and accurate broadband maps to inform your policy decisions. US broadband for a good 30 years now has relied on an intentionally distorted view of the industry; one enabled by an industry that doesn't want obvious market failure highlighted... or fixed.

Filed Under: fcc. broadband, feedback

MacWorld, PCWorld Kill Site Comments Because They 'Value And Welcome Feedback'

from the this-muzzle-shows-how-much-I-love-you dept

For a while now the trend du jour in online media is to not only block your readers from making news story comments, but to insult their intelligence by claiming this muzzling is driven by a deep-rooted love of community and conversation. NPR, for example, muted its entire readership because, it claimed, it "adored reader relationships." Reuters and Recode, in contrast, prevented their own users from speaking on site thanks to a never-ending dedication to "conversation." Motherboard similarly banned all on-site reader feedback because it greatly "values discussion."

There's a number of reasons to ban comments, but few if any have anything to do with giving a damn about your community. Most websites, writers and editors simply don't want to spend the time or money to moderate trolls or cultivate local community because it takes a little effort, and quality human discourse can't be monetized on a pie chart. Instead, it's easier and cheaper to simply outsource all public human interactivity to Facebook. In addition to being simpler, it avoids the added pitfalls of a public comment section where corrections to your story errors are posted a little too visibly.

Few outlets can actually admit any of this, so instead we get bizarre platitudes about how moving bi-directional website interactivity backward is some kind of ingenious media evolution. Case in point: IDG last week joined the fun and announced that all of its media outlets (Macworld, NetworkWorld, PCWorld, etc.) would be removing news comments moving forward. According to the company, this change is a reflection of IDG's ongoing commitment to feedback:

"At IDG, we’ve always valued and welcomed feedback from our readers, and that’s something that will never change. What is changing, however, is one facet of how we get your feedback.

Again, nothing quite says we "welcome feedback" like preventing all public, on-site feedback. Just like other news outlets, IDG insists that shoving interested community members over to social media is the same thing as retaining an on-site community:

"This change was made for a couple of important reasons. First, more and more of you are already communicating with us, and with one another, via social media, where our editors and reporters are posting content and interacting with readers throughout the day.

Second, while we’ve always valued comments, we’ve also had to deal with the reality of managing spam and policing inappropriate comments—comments that don’t reflect the professional nature of our audiences and diminish the value of community interaction. Moving the discussion to social media obviates those issues."

Well for one, this idea that managing spam and trolls is some kind of sisyphean impossibility is nonsense. You'll find countless websites (this one included) where spam and trolling is minimized and public interactivity is still protected (often by the community itself). In fact, some studies have suggested that just having website employees show up and give a damn can have a dramatic, positive impact on your local community. If you see consistent trolling and spamming in news comments it means somebody, somewhere doesn't give a shit. Pretending otherwise is a cop out your readership can see through.

This pretense that social media interactivity is the same as more niche on site conversation is also problematic. As feedback is offloaded to social media, we're seeing an overall reduction in transparency when it comes to news reader interaction. Many social media users exist in cordoned off areas where they only have a limited view of the conversation (protected Tweets, etc), which harms transparency. But that's the whole point for many editors: a return to the "letters to the editor" era where you get to control the conversation, even if it comes at the cost of users spending less time on your website.

All of that said, stand still so I can kick you repeatedly in the shin out of my deep-rooted love of your ability to walk.

Filed Under: comments, conversation, feedback, macworld, pcworld
Companies: idg

The Toronto Star Loves Commentary So Much, It Will No Longer Let You Comment

from the a-muzzled-readership-is-the-new-black dept

Add the Toronto Star to the growing list of websites which claim to love conversation with their readers so much, they will no longer be letting readers comment. As we've seen with countless news outlets over the last year, it's not just good enough to close your comment section, for some reason you must insult your readers' collective intelligence. This can easily be accomplished by pretending you're not closing down comments because you're too lazy and cheap to maintain a local community and moderators, but because you're looking out for the best interests of all mankind.

For example, Motherboard closed its comments section because it just really, really "valued discussion." The Verge informed its readers this year it was muzzling an entire readership because it was interested in "building relationships." Reuters, Recode, Popular Science all similarly insisted they were pressing the site visitor mute button because they simply adore the readership relationship and all it entails.

Not to be outdone by this parade of platitudes, Toronto Star Editor Michael Cooke this week also informed his site's readers the Star was eliminating the ability to comment on stories starting on Wednesday, December 16. Why? Because the news outlet simply adores its readership's passion and insight:

"We’ll also be working to foster more insightful commentary from our readers and engage with you in a more meaningful way. We have passionate, opinionated readers who are eager to get involved in conversations about politics, education, municipal issues, sports and more. You’re talking about the news on thestar.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, LinkedIn and more — and we want to be able to capture all of these conversations."

How exactly will this be accomplished moving forward? Like all the other comment-killing websites, the Star will lazily shove its readers toward social media, while highlighting only Star approved user thoughts and feedback received privately via e-mail:

"Our objective is to highlight the most thoughtful, insightful and provocative comments from readers and to inspire discussion across other platforms and on thestar.com. We’re looking forward to hearing from you — weigh in today at comments@thestar.ca."

Like most news outlets, The Star dreams of returning to the bygone days of letters to the editor, when you could just pretend idiots and trolls didn't exist, highlighting only staff-approved thought and opinions. Who needs the bi-directional nature of the Internet? Who wants readers pointing out how your authors have screwed up a story? And frankly, who wants to get your loafers dirty interacting with the unwashed masses?

When you close your comment section you're telling your users you don't think their voices matter. When you then insist you closed comments for the sake of "improved conversation," you're telling those same muted customers you think they're all idiots.

As we note every time another site takes the ax to their on-site community, the idea of comment section as some kind of mythical, untameable monster is a myth. Data shows all it takes to dramatically raise the discourse bar in the comments section is actually showing up and giving half a damn. It's neither expensive nor time-consuming to do, but it's a whole lot easier to shut down all public, transparent user feedback, and then pretend it's for the good of the known universe.

Filed Under: comments, feedback, newspapers, readership
Companies: toronto star

Senate Passes Bill Banning Non-Disparagement Clauses

from the silencing-the-silencers dept

Despite it being transparently obvious that non-disparagement clauses hidden in fine print serve the singular purpose of deterring complaints about bad products and services, companies still deploy them with little fear of retribution. To date, only one state has actually banned the use of non-disparagement clauses: California.

The issue appears to have finally reached the critical mass needed to propel it onto the national legislative radar. Back in May, multiple representatives started pushing for a federal ban on these clauses, prompted in part by the high-profile KlearGear debacle, in which a couple had their credit rating ruined by the online retailer in its pursuit of a BS $3,500 fee tied to its (nonexistent at the time of the negative review) non-disparagement clause.

The Senate's version of this bill -- which also forbids companies from requiring customers to sign over IP rights to their reviews (so they can be targeted with bogus DMCA takedown notices) -- has cleared another significant hurdle, as The Consumerist reports.

A nationwide ban on the use of tricky “non-disparagement” or “gag” clauses — which prevent consumers from providing their honest opinions in public forums — cleared the Senate today, bringing it one major step closer to becoming law.

If passed by the full Congress, the Consumer Review Freedom Act [PDF] would give the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general the authority to take enforcement action against businesses that attempt to these ethically questionable clauses to quiet consumers.

The House version hasn't moved forward since May. The Senate's passage of a nearly identical bill should prompt some action from this side of Congress. Both bills would seem to have enough support to make this a reality.

If passed, the new law would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to take action against companies deploying non-disparagement clauses. Unfortunately, the Senate version does not authorize $16,000/day fines for violating the law like the House version does, instead limiting the FTC's actions to civil proceedings. But either way, a ban at the federal level would give shady American companies no place to hide.

Filed Under: feedback, free speech, gag clause, non-disparagement clauses, reviews, senate

Med Express Ordered To Pay $20k In Sanctions For Frivolous Lawsuit Over A Negative eBay Review

from the slappety-slapp-slapp dept

Back in 2013, we wrote about an Ohio medical equipment company, named Med Express, which had sued a marginally dissatisfied customer, Amy Nicholls, demanding she take down her eBay review. Her review wasn't even that bad. It just expressed dismay that the product she ordered arrived postage due, meaning she had to pay more than expected to get it. She found that to be a nuisance and expressed it. The lawyer representing Med Express, James Amodio, told Public Citizen's Paul Levy directly that he had filed the lawsuit to get the review taken down, even if it was entirely truthful. Here was Paul Levy, at the time:

I contacted James Amodio, Med Express’s lawyer, to explain to him the many ways in which his lawsuit is untenable. He readily admitted that, as the complaint admits, everything that the customer had posted in her feedback was true; he did not deny that a statement has to be false to be actionable as defamation; but he just plain didn’t care. To the contrary, he told me that I could come up to Medina, Ohio, and argue whatever I might like, but that the case was going to continue unless the feedback was taken down or changed to positive. And he explained why his client was insisting on this change — he said that it sells exclusively over eBay, where a sufficient level of negative feedback can increase the cost of such sales as well as possibly driving away customers

A couple of days later, Med Express's President, Richard Radey, showed up in our comments, appearing to apologize for the lawsuit, and saying it was a mistake and he was instructing his attorneys to drop the lawsuit. He also claimed that the lawyers were doing a lot of this without his knowledge, but he clearly signed an affidavit claiming that the review included "false" information. Paul Levy, once again, pointed out that if this was all a big mistake, it seemed odd that Med Express had filed a bunch of similar lawsuits:

Of the current crop of lawsuits, the suit against Nicholls isn’t even the worst. I haven’t yet been able to see the original documents from the transaction on which Med Express’ lawsuit against Guam resident Tan Jan Chen is based, but the lawsuit against Scranton-area resident Dennis Rogan is over a two-word “neutral” buyer feedback stating “Order retracted.” Apparently, Rogan bought a piece of equipment on eBay but Med Express had to refund his money because, as it explained in a message accompanying the PayPal refund, “This should not have been still listed—we removed this item a few weeks back-it broke.” As in Nicholls’ case, the statement over which Med Express sued for libel was true, but even worse than in Nicholls’ case, Rogan had not even left “negative” feedback.

Also, thanks to a friendly Popehat signal, Nicholls (and Rogan) had found pro bono legal support from Tom Haren and Jeffrey Nye (along with Levy), who quickly filed a response and counterclaims, meaning that even though Radey claimed Med Express was dropping the lawsuit against Nicholls, it couldn't just walk away.

And... because of that, Med Express just got hit with $20,000 in sanctions for filing a bogus lawsuit. You can read the decision here. Even without an anti-SLAPP law in Ohio, the court clearly recognized that this was a frivolous lawsuit. Not only that, the court found that Radey himself appeared to be playing word games in his own testimony to the court.

Specifically, during testimony Radey claimed that he had seen the reviews give "1" ratings in "all of those categories" (on eBay you can rate a seller on 4 different categories). However, as a representative from eBay told the court, the sellers don't actually get to see those ratings -- and, neither Rogan nor Nicholls actually gave Med Express a "1" in every category (in fact, Rogan only rated Med Express in one category and gave the company the highest rating, a 5). That's called lying by Radey.

The deposition of [eBay's] Ms. Long shows that Mr. Rady's testimony was false.

Radey then testified again, in which he tried to tap dance around his earlier false testimony. The court explains here:

Mr. Radey also testified again. His testimony varied from the first hearing in that he attempted to clarify his prior trial testimony wherein he testified he saw Defendants Nicholls and Rogan rated him with all 1's in the detailed seller ratings categories. This time he testified he must have jumped to the conclusion Nicholls and Rogan rated him with all 1's (as opposed to his prior testimony that he basically watched it happen almost live). Mr. Rady also testified he called Ebay years ago and Ebay gave him the idea to file suit against Ebay and buyers leaving negative feedback. The negative feedback could be removed by court order. The testimony wasn't credible.

Apparently, Radey and Med Express went through five different lawyers during this whole process, and back in July, their last lawyer withdrew from the case, citing "irreconcilable differences with the client." And the company has not found a new lawyer.

In the end, the court is not at all impressed by Radey.

The Plaintiff's complaints had no merit, legally or factually, when they were filed.

The court then lists out the four indications of a frivolous filing, noting that Med Express's suit violated all four.

The Plaintiff's suit was for an improper purpose. The goal was to thwart Ebay's seller ranking system for financial gain by obtaining an injunction against out of state defendants unlikely to be able to defend themselves. The Defendants did absolutely nothing wrong. They simply participated in Ebay's feedback component in exactly the manner in which Ebay intended. While Mr. Rady may perceive Ebay's seller ranking system to be unfair to sellers, the remedy wasn't to attack the buyers.

The Plaintiff's complaint was not warranted under existing law, could not have been supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and could not be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law. The Defendants did nothing more than accurately recite a statement of facts and express their opinion.

Meanwhile, in Levy's blog post about this (linked above), he notes that it appears that Radey has been seeking to avoid all the negative publicity about this by changing the name of his business on eBay.

Med Express changed its eBay moniker from Med Express Sales to Medical Specialists, apparently to try to avoid the negative associations caused by its lawsuit; a recent check of eBay suggests that, although Med Express was still in business as of the second sanctions trial this past spring, it has changed its selling name again.

Either way, it looks like he's going to have to pay up for his bogus lawsuits. Hopefully this is a lesson to others who think about filing similar SLAPP suits, even where there are no anti-SLAPP laws.

Filed Under: bad reviews, defamation, feedback, frivolous lawsuits, richard radey
Companies: ebay, med express, medical specialists

UK Government To Set Up Online Feedback For Public Services

from the A++++-gr8-doctor!!! dept

While some American doctors are taking steps to try and prevent their patients from reviewing them online, the British government says that it will soon open up a feedback system for people there to review doctors in the country's National Health System. Not surprisingly, a doctors' trade body has taken exception to the plan, saying it "could reduce NHS care to a meaningless popularity contest, encouraging perverse behaviours and an emphasis on the superficial." Perhaps that's true, but it could also put pressure on doctors to be more responsive to patients and pay more attention to how they treat them. The move is part of a wider effort to open up all sorts of public services in the UK to public feedback, rating service providers like police, schools and childcare providers. The value of the feedback when people don't have any choice in provider -- such as police -- may be debatable, but it could prove to be a useful tool to help encourage improvement.

Filed Under: feedback, government, uk

Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback

from the about-time dept

One of the more important points made in Matt Mason's book, The Pirate's Dilemma is that piracy almost always is a leading indicator for what the market wants, but isn't being delivered. This is a point that's extremely difficult for those whose content is being pirated to grasp -- because their natural reaction is to feel like a victim, rather than the recipient of useful market data. So, it's great to see that's not always the case. A couple people have sent in a story about a pair of small time iPhone developers who recently discovered that their iPhone game had been cracked and a ton of people were downloading it for free. Rather than freak out about it, the guy had an open conversation with the cracker who explained why he did it. Basically, he said he was disappointed with the fact that many games did not live up to the quality level promised, and a cracked version let them try before they bought. The developer actually felt that was a good point, and is now looking into alternative business models for his app, including a try-before-you-buy option, or an ad supported version. It's also worth pointing out, by the way, that the day that the app was getting pirated a ton, it also brought in more sales than usual...

Filed Under: feedback, piracy, video games

Sued For Libel Over eBay Feedback

from the truth-is-a-defense-against-libel... dept

There's been plenty of criticism over eBay's feedback system over the years, and recently the company famously stopped allowing sellers to give feedback, since many sellers were using it as a weapon to force buyers to give good feedback, or risk getting bad feedback themselves. However, the latest outrage over eBay's feedback system seems a bit silly. A seller in the UK is suing a buyer for libel for his eBay feedback.

In this case, the buyer bought a mobile phone, but was disappointed that the phone was beat up and not the model that was advertised. He complained to the seller, sent it back and asked for a refund -- which was given. However, he then posted feedback saying: "Item was scratched, chipped and not the model advertised on Mr Jones's eBay account." From the sound of things, this was accurate. The seller, unfortunately, seemed to think that because he refunded the purchase, that the feedback was now libelous. It's hard to see how he has much of a case (even in the UK where libel laws are much stricter). The feedback was accurate. The fact that the seller agreed to take back the phone and refund the difference doesn't change that.

Filed Under: feedback, libel, uk
Companies: ebay

Sellers Band Together To Create Their Own Naughty Buyer List For eBay

from the well-that's-one-way-to-deal-with-things dept

Back in February, you may recall that eBay announced plans to ban negative feedback from sellers to buyers. The problem was that many sellers were apparently using it as a weapon against buyers who might criticize them. That is, if you had a bad experience as a buyer, rather than fix the problems that resulted in that bad experience, the seller would simply slam you back in the buyer feedback. In other words, it had become something of a nuclear stalemate -- forcing buyers to be too afraid to leave any negative feedback for sellers. Of course, banning negative feedback on buyers seems a bit extreme as the response. And, in the comments to our post, people suggested a variety of alternatives eBay could have tried (including not letting you see the feedback someone left for you until you leave feedback for them). In the meantime, sellers who are upset about this may now have another weapon. One site has set up a system for sellers to share their own buyer "blacklists," effectively creating a large list of problem buyers. What's most interesting to me, is how this shows how the community itself responds to a change in the rules that they feel has too many negative consequences -- rather than just waiting for eBay to fix the problem.

Filed Under: auctions, feedback, ratings, sellers
Companies: ebay