Investigation Finds Links Between Seamy Slander Sites and Reputation-Management Services (nytimes.com) 51
This week the New York Times published their online investigation into the seamy world of the professional slander industry. (Alternate URL.)
At first glance, the websites appear amateurish. They have names like BadGirlReports.date, BustedCheaters.com and WorstHomeWrecker.com. Photos are badly cropped. Grammar and spelling are afterthoughts. They are clunky and text-heavy, as if they're intended to be read by machines, not humans. But do not underestimate their power...
One woman in Ohio was the subject of so many negative posts that Bing declared in bold at the top of her search results that she "is a liar and a cheater" — the same way it states that Barack Obama was the 44th president of the United States. For roughly 500 of the 6,000 people we searched for, Google suggested adding the phrase "cheater" to a search of their names. The unverified claims are on obscure, ridiculous-looking sites, but search engines give them a veneer of credibility. Posts from Cheaterboard.com appear in Google results alongside Facebook pages and LinkedIn profiles....
That would be bad enough for people whose reputations have been savaged. But the problem is all the worse because it's so hard to fix. And that is largely because of the secret, symbiotic relationship between those facilitating slander and those getting paid to remove it.
Who, exactly? The Times spoke to:
At first glance, the websites appear amateurish. They have names like BadGirlReports.date, BustedCheaters.com and WorstHomeWrecker.com. Photos are badly cropped. Grammar and spelling are afterthoughts. They are clunky and text-heavy, as if they're intended to be read by machines, not humans. But do not underestimate their power...
One woman in Ohio was the subject of so many negative posts that Bing declared in bold at the top of her search results that she "is a liar and a cheater" — the same way it states that Barack Obama was the 44th president of the United States. For roughly 500 of the 6,000 people we searched for, Google suggested adding the phrase "cheater" to a search of their names. The unverified claims are on obscure, ridiculous-looking sites, but search engines give them a veneer of credibility. Posts from Cheaterboard.com appear in Google results alongside Facebook pages and LinkedIn profiles....
That would be bad enough for people whose reputations have been savaged. But the problem is all the worse because it's so hard to fix. And that is largely because of the secret, symbiotic relationship between those facilitating slander and those getting paid to remove it.
Who, exactly? The Times spoke to:
- Cyrus Sullivan, the Portland-based owner of one site who also runs a reputation-management service "to help people get 'undesirable information' about themselves removed from their search engine results. The 'gold package' cost $699.99. For those customers, Mr. Sullivan would alter the computer code underlying the offending posts, instructing search engines to ignore them...."
- 247Removal's owner Heidi Glosser, who "charges $750 or more per post removal, which adds up to thousands of dollars for most of her clients. To get posts removed, she said, she often pays an 'administrative fee' to the gripe site's webmaster. We asked her whether this was extortion. 'I can't really give you a direct answer,' she said." She appeared to have links to...
- Web developer Vikram Parmar, who seemed to be running several sites that produced slander while also simultaneously running sites that made money by removing that slander.
But finally, the Times reminded their readers that "in certain circumstances, Google will remove harmful content from individuals' search results, including links to 'sites with exploitative removal practices.' If a site charges to remove posts, you can ask Google not to list it.
"Google didn't advertise this policy widely, and few victims of online slander seem aware that it's an option. That's in part because when you Google ways to clean up your search results, Google's solution is buried under ads for reputation-management services..."
the FBI should step in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the FBI should step in (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a LOT of fraud statutes, and there's a pretty good chance they're crossing over into extortion.
Re: (Score:3)
What if I run the same website, but from Russia or Cambodia or DRC or whatever country where said laws are a lot more flexible and a lot less enforceable?
Am afraid that the cat is out of the box. Google uses algorithms that can be gamed by those who know how to game them and when the whole world is at the mercy of the big G, it's also at the mercy of those who know how to get on its right side.
We left that age where you could avoid having a profile online by simply not using the service. Now we're at that a
Re: (Score:3)
What if I run the same website, but from Russia or Cambodia or DRC or whatever country where said laws are a lot more flexible and a lot less enforceable?
Those are countries where you would be likely to get a bullet in the head for doing it.
You're exaggerating (Score:3)
Re:the FBI should step in (Score:4, Insightful)
Extortion. This is the sort of racketeering and corrupt practices that organized crime run. RICO was made for this.
"it would be a shame if your reputation was sullied."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think RICO works here, it's intended to catch you when you order someone else to commit crime.
Re:the FBI should step in (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think RICO works here, it's intended to catch you when you order someone else to commit crime.
False. It's when you commit the crime [nolo.com] as part of an organization (see the definition for organization). To wit:
(1) racketeering activity means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
And the list goes on. See link above for more matters covered under the statute. What these people are doing is most likely extortion [thefreedictionary.com]. Make up something to defame them, then say for a few bucks they'll make the bad things go away.
Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
What these people are doing is most likely extortion [thefreedictionary.com]. Make up something to defame them, then say for a few bucks they'll make the bad things go away.
It looks like user-uploaded content, so I'm not sure the website owners made anything up to defame anyone.
Re: the FBI should step in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the definition of racketeering *as part of* a charge under 1962, not the *complete* definition of a RICO charge. Not every instance of racketeering is a RICO violation, and if someone was directly connected to the racket they will often only be charged with racketeering since it is easier to prove than a RICO charge since the latter has more components.
RICO does cover when someone is profiting from racketeering but is not performing the racketeering. I suppose the idea of "ordering someone else to co
Re: (Score:3)
You can think what you want, but the US courts have found 5 elements that need to be satisfied to be found guilty under RICO. You may be confusing parts of the fifth element. Participating indirectly in the conduct is what you are referring to. However, as you can see by the plain text, participating directly in the conduct also finds you guilty.
I'd say on first glance, that all 5 are met, and it would not be misconduct to go forth with an indictment.
In order to find (name) guilty of this offense, you mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: the FBI should step in (Score:2)
Defamation of character isn't illegal in the US? Slander or harassment neither?
I know, free speech... But is it legal for B to e.g. walk behind A, holding faked photo of him raping a child, while yelling "murderer, rapist, banker!"?
What about A's freedom from B's freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
You go up the chain, say by telling Google "For every page you index on these slander blogs we fine you $500,000 in absentia."
Re: (Score:2)
Defamation of character isn't illegal in the US? Slander or harassment neither?
It looks like these websites are made from user-uploaded images and testimonials. Therefore the operators are protected by section 230 (whether they should be or not). The people who uploaded the images may have done something illegal, but also in some cases the accusations could be true.
Re: the FBI should step in (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that in most cases the sites aren't merely platforms that just happen to be used by some people to upload that material, the sites actively and explicitly solicit that material and encourage users to upload it. Courts have held that the site's active involvement can lead to it being held responsible for material to the degree it was involved in getting it published. That degree of involvement is, in fact, exactly the difference between a security company and a mob boss running a protection racket.
Re: (Score:3)
Criminal: Extortion/Blackmail, and possibly Fraud.
Civil: All of the above plus defamation
If you threaten to destroy someones reputation unless they pay you, its textbook Blackmail.
If you then deny your the one responsible in the first place for the defamation, then extract a fee to fix it, your adding Fraud (obtaining riches by deception) to the list.
Any of these could lead to a judge deciding to store you in a concrete cube until your hair turns grey.
Re: (Score:1)
Who the fuck do you think is DOING it? Yea. Keep asking yourself why the FBI hasn't stepped in. (Incidentally this has been happening to me for years, but usually people just think you're crazy when you tell them.)
Re: (Score:1)
So ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The 'gold package' cost $699.99. For those customers, Mr. Sullivan would alter the computer code underlying the offending posts, instructing search engines to ignore them...."
Either he actually owns/controls the offending websites or will be breaking into / hacking them. One's a scam, the other's a crime.
Re: So ... (Score:2)
A scam's also a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, a statement like "altering the computer code" is still a dead giveaway that the person writing the story has absolutely no clue how things work.
Re: (Score:3)
What tipped me off was the "declared in bold" part as though Bing was the one yelling "SHE'S A FUCKING CHEATING LYING WHORE". Anyone who wants to write about the internet should be told to look up goatse, tubgirl, harlequin fetus, and lemon party, if they don't immediately refuse then they're not qualified to write about the internet.
Unless your name is Karen... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like "social scoring" is already here, just under a different name.
Sounds like an ad... (Score:4, Insightful)
...for Al's Glass [knowyourmeme.com].
Simple solution (Score:2)
Any site that wishes to charge to remove such information can only charge 1/2 the price they charged to post it, and must do so in no less time then they took to accept the listing.
If it was free to post, it must be free to remove.
Reputation is weaponized (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what will happen with the social credit system some people around here are advocating. Pure destruction by gossip.
Not a Twitter user I see? (Score:2)
Pure destruction by gossip.
That's what the social media [wikipedia.org] in general and Twitter in particular [knowyourmeme.com] are famous for.
Chinese at least offer an option of rehabilitating one's social credit when they pay their dues to the society.
Corporate-backed social credit system is operated by people who do it out of spite, hate and for the ego-boost they get out of abuse of others.
You know... Witch-hunts.
And those never end.
Not even [otherwiseaward.org] long after you're dead. [wikipedia.org]
Anyone old enough to remember Jay J Armes? (Score:2)
This type of grift/blackmail is probably as old as the human race...
https://www.texasmonthly.com/n... [texasmonthly.com]
"Armes said he had a stack of pictures a foot deep. He said he was sitting right there then looking at one of me in a daisy chain. I asked him what a daisy chain was, and he told me. Well, I hadnâ(TM)t been in a daisy chain recently, but I was still worried. Then he got to the point: he said my ex-wife had paid his agents $3,000 cash, so if Iâ(TM)d put up another $300 heâ(TM)d give me the pict
It would be wrong (Score:2)
It would be wrong for me to suggest that putting a bullet in each of their heads would solve this problem. So I won't do that.
Re: It would be wrong (Score:2)
It would not be wrong though, if you accidentially had looked the other way, while a suicidal crack addict had done it before jumping off that bridge, would it? ;)
I mean what a timing! You can't stare at them all the time anyway, or people think you got crazy eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always surprised in cases like this that just one of the people they victimize hasn't hunted them down and filled them full of lead. It says a lot about the general level of restraint people possess.
What about Google? (Score:1)
Ye olde link farming. (Score:2)
Everything old is new again.
Seems Google didn't stop is as well as they said they did.
And didn't we always know...
Controversial knee-jerk take incoming: (Score:1)
What if... this isn't really a huge deal?
The primary victims here - as in, people who actually pay the fees - seem to be extremely Type A strung-out stressaholics who, frankly, take themselves too seriously for their own good.
Any job that would make a hiring decision based on these sites is clearly being run by morons - morons a cut below the average morons running a company, mind. Same with potential dating partners. In both cases, these scumbag sites serve as an unintentional bug-zapper for jobs you won't
Funniest crap I have seen in awhile... (Score:2)
That's literally one of the few times I've laughed so hard. When I read that the search engines default result for her was that I just about spit my coffee out.
The enabler in all of this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and it's Royal Dutch Shell's fault that my mom's phone number is on the bathroom wall on a gas station outside Duluth.
Seamy slander sites (Score:3)
like Yelp?
"Declared in bold" (Score:2)
You mean the search suggestions determined by recurring phrases on the internet was emphasized to show that it was an amended search? First day on the internet?
Also, >using bing
Old story. (Score:2)
"Link found between outbreak of snakes and travelling snakecatcher"
Re: (Score:1)