As many of you know, I frequently speak for The State Bar of Texas and have done a fair amount of work in the Texas legal community. Thus, I often have law firms and/or PR agencies working on behalf of law firms reach out to me inquiring about online reputation management. This past month, a scenario came across my radar screen that really caused me to think about the impacts that “black hat social media” can have on society and businesses overall. For those of you who know my history of digging into injustices on the Internet (see Operation Avalanche and Investigation Landslide stories where I volunteered almost a decade ago), this is the kind of story that gets me revved up.
The story involves a business that was unjustly attacked via an online site I know all too well—The Rip-Off Report. The Rip-Off Report is, in my opinion, a black hat site social media site that disguises itself as a consumer protection organization. The irony is that a site whose stated purpose is to reveal scams, rip-offs, and other injustices actually has a few ethical nuances of its own that beg me to ask the question, “Who’s the scammer?”
The Rip-Off Report and Ed Magedson
As reported by Sarah Fenske in a 2007 Phoenix New Times article entitled “The Real Rip-Off Report”, The Rip-Off Report is a website created by a Tempe, Arizona resident named Ed Magedson. Per the article, Magedson, a native of Long Island, had several prior business ventures that were ultimately unsuccessful in part due to pressures from city agencies enforcing code compliance. In the mid-90’s, on the heels of successful vigilante work he had done for a local Mesa attorney, he created The Rip-Off Report website with the help of a web designer. The site’s purpose was to host consumer complaints on just about anything. Since its inception, the site has had over 250,000 complaints on it and has seen over 8 billion visitors. Still, as the saying goes, “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
The Rip-Off Report allows anyone to post just about anything (minus social security numbers and obscene language) targeted toward a company, agency, and/or individual. This creates two problems. First, there is no mechanism to validate that the identify of the individual making the claim is true. The second is there is no mechanism to validate the claim itself or requirement for external public information to serve as a citation of the information provided or claim. This means that I can sign in via a Hotmail account I created a few minutes prior with false information and put up a post saying Apple’s new MacBooks aren’t aluminum but painted with lead based paint in a Chinese factory (completely false). The only policy the site has is that nothing gets deleted; thus, my claim against computer maker Apple is up there forever.
One critical element of the Internet must be made clear in order to understand why being listed in a site like The Rip-Off Report is so damaging—search engines drive traffic to websites and people will find it. This is substantiated by several statistics. First, 92% of the world’s 250 million daily Internet users do use a search engine. Over 25 million searches a day are on proper names, which include people and the names of companies. Moreover, 92% of users click on information they find on the first page of a search engine. Google, the dominant search engine, which enjoys over 65% of the world’s Internet searches, places Rip-Off Report content very high in its index for proper name searches. Thus, Google, not your website, really becomes your home page.
Though there are all kinds of conspiracy theories, the bottom line is that The Rip-Off Report uses ethical search engine optimization techniques that appeal to Google. These techniques are actually within Google’s Webmaster Guidelines. Thus, if you or your company is in The Rip-Off Report, a single Google search for your phone number will make this known to a potential or existing customer. (My accusation that The Rip-Off Report is a black hat social media site is not predicated on the classic SEO black hat SEO based definition as discussed in Brian Carter’s post on Black Hat vs. White Hat Social Media Optimization which violate Google’s guidelines. My definition is based on the fact that the site knowingly hosts inaccurate information in order to attract search traffic and inbound links.)
A company the size of Apple can probably withstand these inaccuracies and they also have a strong enough search engine presence that Rip-Off Report content likely won’t see the first page. However, small- to medium-sized businesses can be severely affected by a site that will post any content that a search engine will find, accurate or not. Inaccurate posts can put them out of business. Per the New Times article, one example is an Illinois-based company called George S. May International Company. Postings were put on The Rip-Off Report alleging that the company’s founder was a pedophile who “inflicted porn on his staff at recent staff meetings”. The irony is that the company’s founder passed away in the 60s, rendering the claim impossible. So how can a site be allowed to host such information when even the nation’s tabloid industry is held accountable for ethical journalism?
Believe it or not, a federal law that was created in 1996 called The Communications Decency Act (CDA) supports this model. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides a safe harbor for “the host” of a website and places no responsibility on them for the content on their site. Since individuals not associated with The Rip-Off Report post the content, Magedson and his company are immune.
And despite the interpersonal behavior of Ed Magedson portrayed in the New Times article, various sites featuring his prior arrest and mug shot photos, and Magedson’s business practices having undesirable traits based on mainstream American moral standards, he has operated 100% within rules. The exception is how he monetizes the site—his Corporate Advocacy Program.
The Rip-Off Report’s Corporate Advocacy Program
The Rip-Off Report’s Corporate Advocacy Program allows companies to pay Ed Magedson to write editorial copy next to negative postings. Per the embedded Fox News coverage of The Rip-Off Report, these fees can range from a few thousand dollars to much higher. Per the New Times article, court documents in a Pinal County against Pizza Hut by a former employee reveal that Magedson has requested fees in the 6 digit range on more than one occasion. Facing a federal law providing safe harbor for Magedson and his website, many companies decide to pay instead of incurring legal fees. Others have refused, claiming extortion; yet, their businesses have suffered immensely as a result of their decisions. Per the New Times article, one company that chose to join the program to defend allegations against their deceased founder is George S. May International Company.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
Have you ever wondered how Craig’s List can allegedly show classifieds from prostitutes or, even more disturbing, adults peddling underage prostitutes? Per a New York Times article entitled “As Prostitutes Turn to The Internet, The Law Takes Notice”, Craig’s List and its staff of 24 employees claims it can’t keep up with these types of abuses to its system, though it does not permit these types of advertisements per its terms of service. So why don’t they hire more employees to keep up with it? In a case against Craig’s List alleging violation of the nation’s housing discrimination laws, the courts found that, per section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Immunity clause, Craig’s List was not responsible for the content, but rather the individual/company who posted the content was. More specifically, Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act states:
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by others: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The Communications Decency Act is also commonly referred to as The Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is the law that lets your neighbor put a satellite dish in their front yard regardless of city code or neighborhood association bylaws and it also protects Internet hosts from content posted by others.
The Good and The Bad
One could argue that Craig’s List should do more. As a company, however, they do have policies in place to promote good and they will take content down that violates their policies. These include pornography postings and other illegal activity. Craig’s List does use section 230 to avoid having to drastically change their business model and ramp up their company to staffing hundreds of editorial and monitoring employees. Ed Magedson, on the other hand, has built a business model that uses the ever so powerful Communications Decency Act to protect it from civil law issues including slander and defamation. He also has built a business model that capitalizes on it.
Summary
In summary, I’m not advocating 1st amendment restrictions or that we take any of the dynamic nature out of the Internet by creating new laws. After all, as a blogger, I enjoy being able to say what I want and will always defend that. I also very much disagree with ethics commission laws that restrict opinions on blogs and websites or require disclosure during an election. I’m also not saying that The Rip-Off Report doesn’t contain factual information. Still, when true inaccuracies exist on a site and the site’s owner hides behind a 13 year old federal law to profit at the expense of hard working business owners, there is something that needs to change.
In the end, our government is sometimes slow but the system will work itself out and the injustices caused by sites such as The Rip-Off Report will work themselves out. And maybe government should stay out and Google’s mathematicians should take on the challenge. In the meantime, I encourage you to do your diligence regarding anything you read on the Internet. Whether it be a Fortune 500 company or a local plumbing service, do your homework and check references. Especially if it appears on The Rip-Off Report as it has earned the reputation of being a breading ground for inaccuracies and aggression preying on keywords such as rip-off and scam.
Last, as a consumer, think twice before you pile on to a social media site that breed anger and vengeance as unfairness on your behalf could cost someone their job. You could also end up posting information that even you can’t take down. Read the terms of service and understand what you are getting into. To learn more about the topic, the following BusinessWeek Article on Consumer Vigilantism is very well written.
Since the advent of communications, people have been able to voice their negative opinions, and rightly so. In the internet age, however, those comments now have power to reach greater numbers of people, good or bad. It is important to have access to these opinions, and it is equally important to do one’s own due diligence, not relying on any single source as the definitive source. I think we must keep the internet free, but we must each also be skeptical consumers. Don’t trust ANY blog or website as anything more than what it is: an opinion, and there are as many of those are there are people.
The parallels between ROR and Craigslist are important. To police every comment or report would be prohibitive and more than that, nearly impossible. Who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? I don’t believe it’s up to the owner of the website to determine whose comments are accurate and whose are not. So it all stays until it is forcibly brought down through legal means–proof it is false or slanderous.
IMHO.
Wow – I can’t believe this!
Ripoff report published copious defamatory reports about non-US citizens or business for many years thus violating their own terms of service which stated that reports about non-US businesses or citizens were strictly forbidden. Did the company mentioned in this blog contact google and request to have it removed by providing proof of defamation?
Yes and Google de-indexed content after the case was presented to them. The content, however, has re-entered Google’s index twice since then. One due to the content source changing the URL and implementing a 301 redirect. The second as just a datacenter foul up as Google rolls out their Caffeine update. Google has been very slow to respond in both cases but eventually de-indexes.
I have posted a complaint on rip-off. It was regarding real estate I purchased in MX which involved a MX. developer and a california real estate “guru”. I used rip-off because no where else could I get the attention it needed.
Yes, you still need to do your homework on any company..but its a good place for the consumer who has a legitimate complaint to really get the attention of other unsuspecting victims and the individual involved.
I do agree their should be something in place to stop or remove errors or outright lies. We need a happy medium.
I’ve had my information on Craigslist reproduced and used by others…..craigslist doesn’t have a great reputation for accurate information in my book….but it does amaze me how many are so gullible in beleiving everything they read on these sites. People do your homework.
I agree, for the laws were designed around people who do their homework before they write and do their homework upon reading. Thanks for the input to the article.