Comments on: Black Hat Social Media – What’s Wrong with The Communications Decency Act http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/2009/07/black-hat-social-media/ Social Media with Business Marketing Slant Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:00:16 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: admin http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/2009/07/black-hat-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-384 admin Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:42:27 +0000 http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/?p=199#comment-384 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. 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.

]]> By: downundu http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/2009/07/black-hat-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-383 downundu Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:11:30 +0000 http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/?p=199#comment-383 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? 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?

]]> By: Private Label Rights http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/2009/07/black-hat-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-278 Private Label Rights Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:00:04 +0000 http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/?p=199#comment-278 Wow - I can't believe this! Wow – I can’t believe this!

]]> By: Judy http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/2009/07/black-hat-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-267 Judy Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:57:52 +0000 http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/?p=199#comment-267 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. 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.

]]>