Courts: YELP Critics Must Be Identified

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Uh oh, you'd better think twice about leaving negative feedback from now on. :eek:

In a decision that could reshape the rules for online consumer reviews, a Virginia court has ruled that the popular website Yelp must turn over the names of seven reviewers who anonymously criticized a prominent local carpet cleaning business.
Click to expand...
 
“Yelp said that all the posts had different IP addresses, but how many IP addresses does one person have between all their devices?” Mr. Delaney said.
Click to expand...
This made me giggle.
 
On one hand, if people are abusing anonymity (which is entirely possible--the idea of anonymous citizens as towering paragons of virtue makes me laugh) I have no problem with unmasking them.

That said, the standard for demanding a real identity needs to be carefully considered lest the system be abused. The "inability to match with real customers in the database" seems fishy.
 
I'm confused. If they are not real people, how did they infringe the terms of service?
And secondly, an opinion doesn' thave to be based on facts. It could be grounds for defamation though, if it's false accusations. But I agree with Yelp, they have no evidence of wrongdoing, they only think that it's the same person.

That's enough nowadays? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, when the idea is that, "if you didn't know, it didn't happen" is the acceptable mentality..
 
I agree on this one. I've left negative reviews on various things on the internet, and I stand by every one of them. If someone left false negative reviews, they should certainly be held accountable for slander/libel. (Is it libel or slander on the internet? The internet isn't written, but it is text, so it could be considered libel, sort of. How is that defined specifically?) People do have the right to spread around their negative experiences to protect others from the same behavior, but they also shouldn't be allowed to lie about negative experiences, either.

In short, if you're going to say something, have the balls and the honor to stand by what you say. Anything else is just honorless trolling, and deserves to be punished.
 
That's all fine and well, if they are lying. But there doesn't seem to be much proof that they are.
 
I'm not sure what the value of totally anonymous opinions on the internet about businesses is anyway ... the free speech restrictions in the constitution were clearly targeted at making sure that people had the right to speak out against the government (and the courts have generally given people pretty wide leeway in that area).

One of the criticisms against sites like Yelp from the beginning is that there is no guarantee that a bad review or a good review is actually from a customer (they could be from the company itself, competitors, or paid shills, or just someone with a grudge) ... since there is no penalty in making a bad review (unless you are lying and in that case you committed the civil offense of Libel or Slander and can be sued for damages) I am not sure why anonymous reviews for business are a showstopper for freedom in the USA (it isn't like Mickey D's is going to send a death squad to your house if you say you ate a bad Big Mac ;) )
 
Well I Guess if your gonna make the negatives be know you need to make the positives be known as well.. That would atleast flush out a ton of the fake reviews.
 
There should be a basic set of laws to prevent false negative and positive reviews. For example, we have individuals in our HR department who have resorted to leaving false positive reviews on the site glassdoor.com because it was affecting their ability to hire new employees. Rather than fix the problems causing the negative reviews, they chose to go the easy route and lie. This should be punishable just the same.
 
I mentioned this before, but there should be a receipt number, order number or similar that the yelp reviewer should have to enter to post a review about that company or restaurant. It wouldn't be fool proof, but would offer some verification that the reviewer was there at that time and ordered what they're complaining about.
 
dgingeri said:
In short, if you're going to say something, have the balls and the honor to stand by what you say. Anything else is just honorless trolling, and deserves to be punished.
Click to expand...

In other words:

A. You deserve to be punished for saying something anonymously and getting away with it.

B. You should be forced to identify yourself and to weather whatever abuse comes your way as a result of saying something on the internet.

What a great way to shut people up, and that's what's important, right? :rolleyes:
 
ondaedg said:
There should be a basic set of laws to prevent false negative and positive reviews.
Click to expand...

Yes, we need to draft laws to prevent people from saying nasty things about us. Let's outlaw bullying.
 
Does this mean that we can now sue the KKK, and force those members to reveal their identities? Last I checked, they still wore masks.............

And how are we going to prove that these anonymous reviewers were in fact not customers? Mr. Hadeed? :rolleyes:
 
kbrickley said:
I'm not sure what the value of totally anonymous opinions on the internet about businesses is anyway ... the free speech restrictions in the constitution were clearly targeted at making sure that people had the right to speak out against the government (and the courts have generally given people pretty wide leeway in that area).

One of the criticisms against sites like Yelp from the beginning is that there is no guarantee that a bad review or a good review is actually from a customer (they could be from the company itself, competitors, or paid shills, or just someone with a grudge) ... since there is no penalty in making a bad review (unless you are lying and in that case you committed the civil offense of Libel or Slander and can be sued for damages) I am not sure why anonymous reviews for business are a showstopper for freedom in the USA (it isn't like Mickey D's is going to send a death squad to your house if you say you ate a bad Big Mac ;) )
Click to expand...

If Yelp doesn't have credible reviews, don't use Yelp. As a company speak out against it. If I find service to be poor at a restaurant, I don't need to list my name. I can shout it in a crowd, that doesn't mean I have to show my ID to everyone in the crowd that heard me.
 
kbrickley said:
the free speech restrictions in the constitution were clearly targeted at making sure that people had the right to speak out against the government
Click to expand...

Um, no. Read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say "abridging the freedom of speech against the government". It says "the freedom of speech".

As with every other part of the Bill of Rights, it's amazing how many people pronounce that they are "clearly" meaning something that isn't clear at all.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
If Yelp doesn't have credible reviews, don't use Yelp. As a company speak out against it. If I find service to be poor at a restaurant, I don't need to list my name. I can shout it in a crowd, that doesn't mean I have to show my ID to everyone in the crowd that heard me.
Click to expand...

I don't know if everyone needs to show a distinct ID but if you decide you don't like the owner of a business and post bad reviews of the business because of that then you should be held accountable under Libel or Slander laws (not bullying ones) ;)
 
kbrickley said:
I don't know if everyone needs to show a distinct ID but if you decide you don't like the owner of a business and post bad reviews of the business because of that then you should be held accountable under Libel or Slander laws (not bullying ones) ;)
Click to expand...

Libel and slander are pretty specific. If you say you didn't like the food, or the service was poor, that doesn't qualify. Even if you are lying.

If you say the owner is a gay terrorist that serves dogmeat, that would qualify.
 
kbrickley said:
I don't know if everyone needs to show a distinct ID but if you decide you don't like the owner of a business and post bad reviews of the business because of that then you should be held accountable under Libel or Slander laws (not bullying ones) ;)
Click to expand...

How exactly do you prove the intent of a review?
 
Stiletto said:
It doesn't say "abridging the freedom of speech against the government". It says "the freedom of speech".

As with every other part of the Bill of Rights, it's amazing how many people pronounce that they are "clearly" meaning something that isn't clear at all.
Click to expand...

And the ability to be anonymous is only necessary for certain types of speech (protesting the government or an employer to prevent retaliation, sexual harassment, etc)

If you don't like a businesses service and you have a valid complaint then there is no reason to be anonymous ... if you are lying about a business and using the anonymity of the internet to protect yourself then you are committing a civil offense and you can be held accountable for that ... Freedom of Speech has never protected a person's right to lie or incite to riot ... it also is very narrowly worded (as you quoted) to restrict Congress on passing laws about free speech ... it doesn't prohibit business or the states or the courts from interpreting what is acceptable free speech and what is not ;)
 
kbrickley said:
And the ability to be anonymous is only necessary for certain types of speech (protesting the government or an employer to prevent retaliation, sexual harassment, etc)

If you don't like a businesses service and you have a valid complaint then there is no reason to be anonymous ...
Click to expand...

Oh, good. There's no psychopaths who aren't employers or government employees.

Anonymity and the ability to perpetuate it is a valuable right in a world where your identity is tracked, traded, and compromised on a regular basis.
 
Yeah, because I'm sure those people used their real information when signing up for Yelp. Do judges in Virginia not get how the internet works? I thought you had to be smarter than the average chimp to become a judge. Evidently I was mistaken.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Lying isn't a civil offense.
Click to expand...

It is if it is defamatory in nature

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
Click to expand...

How you define the scope of the injury can determine whether you are at financial risk but lying can definitely easily rise to the level where damages can and should be paid ... if people are confident about their opinions on a business or service then they should be willing to publicly stand up and defend their statements
 
kbrickley said:
Freedom of Speech has never protected a person's right to lie
Click to expand...

Wrong.

it also is very narrowly worded (as you quoted) to restrict Congress on passing laws about free speech ... it doesn't prohibit business or the states or the courts from interpreting what is acceptable free speech and what is not ;)
Click to expand...

Since when do businesses get to define what speech is acceptable outside of their establishment? The courts are bound by the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. And states don't get to defy the Constitution without nullification.
 
kbrickley said:
It is if it is defamatory in nature



How you define the scope of the injury can determine whether you are at financial risk but lying can definitely easily rise to the level where damages can and should be paid ... if people are confident about their opinions on a business or service then they should be willing to publicly stand up and defend their statements
Click to expand...

Not always correct.

If I say a restaurant gave me e. coli when it didn't, that could be proven libelous.

If I say service was terrible, or the quality of food was poor when in fact that wasn't true, no laws are broken. There is nothing you can do about it legally.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Not always correct.

If I say a restaurant gave me e. coli when it didn't, that could be proven libelous.

If I say service was terrible, or the quality of food was poor when in fact that wasn't true, no laws are broken. There is nothing you can do about it legally.
Click to expand...

Depends again, if you posted your poor service statement on a food blog with thousands of followers and my business went under I could try and say you were liable for that ... whether I could muster enough proof for a jury to award me damages is certainly up for discussion but I have the right to try and if I succeed the right to exact damages ... that is how the legal system works ... criminal law can and should have lots of restrictions ... civil law is much more flexible in nature
 
kbrickley said:
If you don't like a businesses service and you have a valid complaint then there is no reason to be anonymous ...
Click to expand...

Not even this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/coup...-review-fights-back-lawsuit/story?id=21249094 (I haven't read this exact article, since I can't read it where I am at.)

But basically, you can have your credit ruined, debt collectors hounding you because of a bad review. Now, I know the agreement stated that they can't say bad things, but if you are for an user agreement that cancels out your freedom of speech, well....
 
kbrickley said:
Depends again, if you posted your poor service statement on a food blog with thousands of followers and my business went under I could try and say you were liable for that ...
Click to expand...
Both of those statements are matters of opinion, not fact. It would be very difficult to try and get a court to allow the case.
 
kbrickley said:
Depends again, if you posted your poor service statement on a food blog with thousands of followers and my business went under I could try and say you were liable for that ... whether I could muster enough proof for a jury to award me damages is certainly up for discussion but I have the right to try and if I succeed the right to exact damages ... that is how the legal system works ... criminal law can and should have lots of restrictions ... civil law is much more flexible in nature
Click to expand...

Nah, you couldn't. Poor service or poor quality of food are considered opinions and not touchable under defamation, even in civil cases.
 
kbrickley said:
Depends again, if you posted your poor service statement on a food blog with thousands of followers and my business went under I could try and say you were liable for that ... whether I could muster enough proof for a jury to award me damages is certainly up for discussion but I have the right to try and if I succeed the right to exact damages ... that is how the legal system works ... criminal law can and should have lots of restrictions ... civil law is much more flexible in nature
Click to expand...

Why should civil law be "flexible"? Why shouldn't it be held to the same standards as criminal law? Why is the damage done to the business owner important enough that those laws should be flexible, but the damage done to the reviewer, if the case doesn't come out in his favor, isn't important enough to keep them strict?
 
ondaedg said:
There should be a basic set of laws to prevent false negative and positive reviews. For example, we have individuals in our HR department who have resorted to leaving false positive reviews on the site glassdoor.com because it was affecting their ability to hire new employees. Rather than fix the problems causing the negative reviews, they chose to go the easy route and lie. This should be punishable just the same.
Click to expand...

No way - we have enough stupid laws, last thing we need is more laws. Services like Yelp are broken by design, and eventually it all sorts itself out. Can't count the number of times I've looked at reviews for a decent place to eat lunch when in unfamiliar territory, and that 5 star restaurant should have been a 2 or 3. Then people go back to their gut instincts "oh this place looks good" and forget about the shenanigans on Yelp. Everytime we enact a law because someone got butthurt - 10 years later either the govt. or big business figures out a way to abuse it to their advantage and to the detriment of average Joe Schmoe.
 
maybe i'm paranoid but companies, and their employees, may retaliate if you give them a bad review. I'm not talking about a fast food joint or something but if you have a company perform in home service then they will have your name, address and credit card information on file. If your public complaint cost someone money or cost someone their job then i don't think retaliation is out of the realm of possibility. An unstable person will murder you for cutting him off in traffic, just think what he'd do if you got him fired.

I'm curious what evidence Hadeed provided to the judge to prove that these posts weren't made by actual customers. I much prefer giving the company the ability to comment on a review instead of revealing someone's information.
 
In the same vein, businesses that post positive reviews of themselves either through them doing it directly, friends, or paying some business to do it should be held liable for consumer fraud.
 
sfsuphysics said:
In the same vein, businesses that post positive reviews of themselves either through them doing it directly, friends, or paying some business to do it should be held liable for consumer fraud.
Click to expand...

On this I agree ... I feel both sides should be held to the highest levels of accountability
 
I quickly learned that Yelp is horseshit. Every restaurant I've tried based on top reviews turned out to be crap, and all my favorite restaurants have mediocre reviews at best. Maybe I'm just really different, but I doubt it.
 
Stiletto said:
In other words:

A. You deserve to be punished for saying something anonymously and getting away with it.

B. You should be forced to identify yourself and to weather whatever abuse comes your way as a result of saying something on the internet.

What a great way to shut people up, and that's what's important, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A. people deserve to be punished for saying something falsely and bad for someone's reputation and business.

B. total anonymity is bad idea in most cases. Reporting a crime done by a large and vengeful organization (which includes the political parties these days) while fearing for you life is about the only reason to keep anonymity, and then only until the people behind it are able to be prosecuted. This is the reason for witness protection. People should be forced to identify themselves to stand by their statements at all times. Unconditional anonymity is a simply license to abuse other people, sometimes to the point of ruining lives, and there is no other use for it.

In this case specifically, they need to identify these people or this person for the court to confirm or deny that they are falsely reporting negative experiences that damaged the company's business. In this specific case, if the carpet cleaner had not done these things they were accused of doing and their business was damaged, the owner of said business needs to have some legal recourse.

If you had quit a job under abuse by a coworker, say that person laying claim to work you had done and telling your boss that you had promised to take over a task that they had no completed, and then have that same ex-coworker post online anonymously that you had been fired for suspect theft, ruining your chances of getting another job and making a living, wouldn't you like to have some legal recourse against them? (This is a very similar situation to what I have had done to me.) Wouldn't having the forum where they accused you of such things identify them so they could be brought to court and judged for that recourse be a good thing?

If you made your living reselling things on Ebay, and someone left false negative feedback against you even though you never sold them anything, wouldn't you like to be able to identify that person and have such a situation corrected?

These are very similar situations to what we're talking about here.
 
Stiletto said:
It doesn't say "abridging the freedom of speech against the government". It says "the freedom of speech".

As with every other part of the Bill of Rights, it's amazing how many people pronounce that they are "clearly" meaning something that isn't clear at all.
Click to expand...

Free speech doesn't ever mean anonymously. If you're going to say something bad about someone, stand by it as truth. If you don't have the balls or the honor to stand by what you say, don't say it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top