This is misguided. Anonymity emboldens people to write things that may be not be accurate and makes it difficult for the target of their criticism to defend themselves. At the very least anyone who posts a rating of anything should be required to post their identity. If you don’t have the courage to stand behind your statement you don’t have the right to ask for legal protection for those statements, especially when it may cause harm to others.
Even so if someone posts something negative that can not be documented they should be subject to a civil suit the same as anyone who does so offline. There are slander laws for a reason.
http://wavy.com/2015/11/04/yelp-help-senate-moves-to-protect-users-honest-reviews/
This is misguided. Anonymity emboldens people to write things that may be not be accurate and makes it difficult for the target of their criticism to defend themselves. At the very least anyone who posts a rating of anything should be required to post their identity. If you don't have the courage to stand behind your statement you don't have the right to ask for legal protection for those statements, especially when it may cause harm to others. Even so if someone posts something negative that can not be documented they should be subject to a civil suit the same as anyone who does so offline. There are slander laws for a reason. http://wavy.com/2015/11/04/yelp-help-senate-moves-to-protect-users-honest-reviews/FYI:It would be libel, not slander. Slander is spoken. Libel is written (and published). In either case, the plaintiff in a civil case would have to show evidence that the plaintiff's reputation was damaged as a result of the statement(s). Lois
This is misguided. Anonymity emboldens people to write things that may be not be accurate and makes it difficult for the target of their criticism to defend themselves. At the very least anyone who posts a rating of anything should be required to post their identity. If you don't have the courage to stand behind your statement you don't have the right to ask for legal protection for those statements, especially when it may cause harm to others. Even so if someone posts something negative that can not be documented they should be subject to a civil suit the same as anyone who does so offline. There are slander laws for a reason. http://wavy.com/2015/11/04/yelp-help-senate-moves-to-protect-users-honest-reviews/You have it exactly backwards. Anonymity allows people to post honest reviews without fear of being sued to death by evil corporations. Having dissatisfied customers is part of being in business. If you can't handle it, get out of the business.
You have it exactly backwards. Anonymity allows people to post honest reviews without fear of being sued to death by evil corporations. Having dissatisfied customers is part of being in business. If you can't handle it, get out of the business.I don't doubt that anonymity gives some people more courage to complain about something that they otherwise wouldnt have but that must be balanced against the fact that anonymity emboldens people to say things that may not be true. An angry individual who did not get what they want can go on a rant even if their complaints are not justified and since they are anonymous the target of their complaint can not collect the facts required to dispute the claims. You are also assuming that all of these rating are legitimate. There have been cases of consumers threatening small business owners especially restaurants with a scathing review if they are not comped or if the business owner does not give into some other unreasonable request. As a physician I have had this happen to me when I refused to give a prescription for a narcotic pain medication to a new patient and they threatened to slam me on a popular website. I didn't give in and the patient apparently decided to spend his energies looking for another doctor to write the rx rather than posting my review so far, but businesses should have some recourse against threats like that. I also had a review on a website once that claimed I had misdiagnosed something. I couldn't respond to the claim because there was no name attached and no details, just a vague claim. Many small businesses may have only a handful of reviews so that a single misguided or malicious individual can post 2 or 3 well placed reviews that may be more than enough to slow traffic to that business. If you have something to say you should have the integrity to stand by your comments and post your identity. If you have your facts straight then you should have nothing to fear. If you don't then you shouldn't be posting, and if you are going to post harmful rants that are not factually based then you should have to face the consequences. If a business can show that a malicious and unsupported or undocumented negative remark would likely have had a negative impact on their business than they should have every right to sue that person. Most people are consumers and not business owners so I suspect that most people think this law is a good thing because they vote for whats best for themselves not necessarily for what is right, but think about it this way. What if I started a website that allowed people to rate every individual who does every job and do it anonymously. If you work for the DMV for example, and you didn't smile broadly enough when I came to your window, or I was just in a bad mood because the line was too long, I could slam you on the forum. To really make the analogy work your boss would get a copy of all of these reviews and would be required to use them in your performance review. You would have no opportunity to respond of course because the reviewer is anonymous. How many Americans would be behind a law that protected a website and its reviewers if they were the one's being victimized by those reviews? I think its fair to say very few people would agree to protect malicious undocumented reviews on such a site. Ideally what should happen is that the target of the review should have access to the name of the reviewer so that they can at last research the claim. At the very least if the claim is accurate it would help the company learn how to do a better job in the future, but just as importantly it would give the business owner the option to present their side of the story which is more helpful to readers of the reviews. Do we as consumers want to be turned away from a good service or product because of a handful of bad reviews from people who may not have reasonable complaints? The BBB does what I am suggesting on their website. Businesses are allowed to have the actual details of the complaint and the name of the consumer. Their responses to bad reviews are often very detailed and its eye opening when you hear the other side of the story. If you want the right to publicly tarnish a company's reputation you should have to put your own reputation on the line and you better have your facts straight.
Alot of what you say is good in theory…have integrity to stand behind your reviews, etc. In practice though owners, of small and big businesses, can be evil bastards. They can sue a person into the ground, deny them service, deny friends and relatives service, and so on. I’d rather side with the little guy, the consumer, instead of the owners. Small biz owners are a little different case of course, but even they can get downright nasty. To me that’s just the price you pay for going into business. Now of course if reviews get personal that’s a different story. But I think by and large they’re not. I use tripadvisor quite a bit, and I’m sure I’m like most people…you take the overall flavor of the reviews, not any one particular one.
Alot of what you say is good in theory...have integrity to stand behind your reviews, etc. In practice though owners, of small and big businesses, can be evil bastards. They can sue a person into the ground, deny them service, deny friends and relatives service, and so on. I'd rather side with the little guy, the consumer, instead of the owners. Small biz owners are a little different case of course, but even they can get downright nasty. To me that's just the price you pay for going into business. Now of course if reviews get personal that's a different story. But I think by and large they're not. I use tripadvisor quite a bit, and I'm sure I'm like most people...you take the overall flavor of the reviews, not any one particular one.And consumers can be nasty bastards as well. You say that's the price you pay for going into business but I disagree. Nowhere is it written that you have to accept abuse simply because you decide to provide a service or product. I realize the usefulness of sites like trip advisor and others but freedom of speech has always come with the caveat that speech must be responsible and that you must be willing to accept the consequences of your speech. This law is an effort by a small number of consumers who want the freedom to malign others without having to take responsibility for their actions. I can virtually guarantee that the number of abusive reviews outstrip the number of business owners who sue reviewers by thousands to one. Any claim that the reviewers need protection is a hugely disproportionate response to a few rare cases and completely ignores the much more common harm done by malicious reviewers.
Anonymity in reviews is a two edged sword. But I suspect that, overall, it does more harm than good.
People should have the courage to stand up for their opinions. An anonymous statement is always suspect. There has to be a reason anyone wants to speak or write anonymously and it’s usually because they want to say something that’s untrue, hurtful or unfair. All anonymous statements and opinions should be put in the same category as BS.
Regarding a requirement to ID yourself before posting online reviews–I can’t imagine how that could be enforced.
Regarding a requirement to ID yourself before posting online reviews--I can't imagine how that could be enforced.The site could be legally required to verify your identity when you sign up. Some sites already do this by requiring credit card drivers license or some other verifiable form of identification
Regarding a requirement to ID yourself before posting online reviews--I can't imagine how that could be enforced.The site could be legally required to verify your identity when you sign up. Some sites already do this by requiring credit card drivers license or some other verifiable form of identification Big First Amendment issues with that one! It's one thing for a website to choose to require such info to sign up. It's quite a different thing (constitutionally speaking) for them to be "legally required" to do so. As far as I'm concerned, these non-disparagement clauses should either be outlawed, or businesses that use them should be required to make full disclosure of them (not hide them in the fine print of a click-through contract). If businesses don't like bad reviews, they should provide good products and service. If review sites want to maintain a good reputation, they should check (and flag or remove) those reviews that are questionable. Also, the proposed legislation] doesn't appear to prevent an action for libel.
Regarding a requirement to ID yourself before posting online reviews--I can't imagine how that could be enforced.The site could be legally required to verify your identity when you sign up. Some sites already do this by requiring credit card drivers license or some other verifiable form of identification Big First Amendment issues with that one! It's one thing for a website to choose to require such info to sign up. It's quite a different thing (constitutionally speaking) for them to be "legally required" to do so. As far as I'm concerned, these non-disparagement clauses should either be outlawed, or businesses that use them should be required to make full disclosure of them (not hide them in the fine print of a click-through contract). If businesses don't like bad reviews, they should provide good products and service. If review sites want to maintain a good reputation, they should check (and flag or remove) those reviews that are questionable. Also, the proposed legislation] doesn't appear to prevent an action for libel. Its unclear from the reading of the legislation whether it would be used to prevent libel actions but the lawmaker who proposed the bill and chaired the hearing brought several witnesses and among them was one individual who was sued by a dentist for a bad review. The particular case had nothing to do with any contract or hidden clauses. You are making the same assumption that many other people do, that reviews are based on reality. Its very naive and insulting to businesses to suggest that they only get bad reviews if they provide an inferior product or service. That is simply not the case. Dealing with the public is always a risky business. There are plenty of bad actors who will flame a business which has done nothing wrong. There is always that small percentage of people who have unrealistic expectations and will spin a review to make it look like they were the victim even when they were the unreasonable aggressor. Anyone who is a target of a bad review should have the right to face their accuser and defend themselves. Allowing people to post anonymously on a forum without having to take responsibility is a recipe for abuse. Just look at the way people act on forums such as this one at times. As a physician its NOT my job to make my patients happy. Its my job to keep them healthy and while its great if I can do both, I need the freedom to piss them off if that's what I have to do to provide the correct care ( ie. refuse antibiotics to a person who has a cold if they continue to demand a prescription even after I have spent 20 minutes explaining why that's not the right thing to do, or declining a demand for narcotic prescription from someone who is abusing them, or refusing to write a prescription for medication in the patients uncles name because he is the only one in the family with insurance). I also should have the right and the information needed to present my side of the story if one of those people decides to take revenge by flaming me on a physician rating site. Every product and service provider should have that same right and opportunity. The right of an individual to defend their reputation is at least as important as the right of someone to get it off their chest when they are not happy with their service or purchase.
Regarding a requirement to ID yourself before posting online reviews--I can't imagine how that could be enforced.The site could be legally required to verify your identity when you sign up. Some sites already do this by requiring credit card drivers license or some other verifiable form of identification Big First Amendment issues with that one! It's one thing for a website to choose to require such info to sign up. It's quite a different thing (constitutionally speaking) for them to be "legally required" to do so. As far as I'm concerned, these non-disparagement clauses should either be outlawed, or businesses that use them should be required to make full disclosure of them (not hide them in the fine print of a click-through contract). If businesses don't like bad reviews, they should provide good products and service. If review sites want to maintain a good reputation, they should check (and flag or remove) those reviews that are questionable. Also, the proposed legislation] doesn't appear to prevent an action for libel. Its unclear from the reading of the legislation whether it would be used to prevent libel actions but the lawmaker who proposed the bill and chaired the hearing brought several witnesses and among them was one individual who was sued by a dentist for a bad review. The particular case had nothing to do with any contract or hidden clauses. You are making the same assumption that many other people do, that reviews are based on reality. Its very naive and insulting to businesses to suggest that they only get bad reviews if they provide an inferior product or service. That is simply not the case. Of course not all negative reviews are reliable, but neither are all POSITIVE reviews either. Some businesses purchase good reviews, or create accounts and put them up themselves. That's why I said "If review sites want to maintain a good reputation, they should check (and flag or remove) those reviews that are questionable." But any business that bans all negative reviews, is certainly not a business to be trusted. Dealing with the public is always a risky business. There are plenty of bad actors who will flame a business which has done nothing wrong. There is always that small percentage of people who have unrealistic expectations and will spin a review to make it look like they were the victim even when they were the unreasonable aggressor. Yes, I've seen those kind of reviews. They usually read like rants, rather than good reviews, and anybody with common sense should dismiss them as such. Anyone who is a target of a bad review should have the right to face their accuser and defend themselves. Allowing people to post anonymously on a forum without having to take responsibility is a recipe for abuse. Just look at the way people act on forums such as this one at times. As a physician its NOT my job to make my patients happy. Its my job to keep them healthy and while its great if I can do both, I need the freedom to piss them off if that's what I have to do to provide the correct care ( ie. refuse antibiotics to a person who has a cold if they continue to demand a prescription even after I have spent 20 minutes explaining why that's not the right thing to do, or declining a demand for narcotic prescription from someone who is abusing them, or refusing to write a prescription for medication in the patients uncles name because he is the only one in the family with insurance). I also should have the right and the information needed to present my side of the story if one of those people decides to take revenge by flaming me on a physician rating site. Every product and service provider should have that same right and opportunity. But if you do "piss them off", they have a right to post truthful criticism about you. If they do post something libelous, courts have subpoena power to obtain IP address, registration email, and other info to track down the actual identity of the person posting. The right of an individual to defend their reputation is at least as important as the right of someone to get it off their chest when they are not happy with their service or purchase. There are better ways of defending your reputation than forcing your patients to sign a non-disparagement clause. I, for one, wouldn't trust any business that tried to make me enter such an agreement.
As a physician its NOT my job to make my patients happy. Its my job to keep them healthy and while its great if I can do both, I need the freedom to piss them off if that's what I have to do to provide the correct care ( ie. refuse antibiotics to a person who has a cold if they continue to demand a prescription even after I have spent 20 minutes explaining why that's not the right thing to do, or declining a demand for narcotic prescription from someone who is abusing them, or refusing to write a prescription for medication in the patients uncles name because he is the only one in the family with insurance). I also should have the right and the information needed to present my side of the story if one of those people decides to take revenge by flaming me on a physician rating site. Every product and service provider should have that same right and opportunity. But if you do "piss them off", they have a right to post truthful criticism about you. If they do post something libelous, courts have subpoena power to obtain IP address, registration email, and other info to track down the actual identity of the person posting. The right of an individual to defend their reputation is at least as important as the right of someone to get it off their chest when they are not happy with their service or purchase. There are better ways of defending your reputation than forcing your patients to sign a non-disparagement clause. I, for one, wouldn't trust any business that tried to make enter such an agreement.Law suits are obviously the avenue of last resort. Its far less costly, quicker, and more effective if the person being attacked can simply post a response. Nothing shines a light on exaggeration and outright lies more than an opportunity to hear from the other side. Its entirely impractical to hire a lawyer to respond to every negative post and doesn't really serve the purpose in most cases. I agree that overt rants can be obvious but there are equally ridiculous complaints that are only ridiculous when you have inside knowledge of the subject being discussed or the situation. The average lay person will not necessarily be able to identify such complaints. I think its entirely reasonable to require people to provide their identity if they are going to post comments good or bad about a person or business in a public space so that the individual or business is given the opportunity to respond. Without the identity of the person its impossible to collect facts and provide a fair and appropriate response. I said it earlier, the BBB does this on their site. Its interesting to see how often your initial impression can change when the business posts a clear detailed response to the complaint. As they say there are always three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. When you only hear one side your most likely not getting the truth.
Law suits are obviously the avenue of last resort. Its far less costly, quicker, and more effective if the person being attacked can simply post a response. Nothing shines a light on exaggeration and outright lies more than an opportunity to hear from the other side. Its entirely impractical to hire a lawyer to respond to every negative post and doesn’t really serve the purpose in most cases. I agree that overt rants can be obvious but there are equally ridiculous complaints that are only ridiculous when you have inside knowledge of the subject being discussed or the situation. The average lay person will not necessarily be able to identify such complaints. I think its entirely reasonable to require people to provide their identity if they are going to post comments good or bad about a person or business in a public space so that the individual or business is given the opportunity to respond. Without the identity of the person its impossible to collect facts and provide a fair and appropriate response. I said it earlier, the BBB does this on their site. Its interesting to see how often your initial impression can change when the business posts a clear detailed response to the complaint. As they say there are always three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. When you only hear one side your most likely not getting the truth.As a matter of best practices for review websites, it is probably a good idea to allow businesses to post responses to reviews, not only as a matter of fairness, but it also improves the credibility of the website (and some, such as tripadvisor, do this). This way, the business will be able to state its side. However, you are advocating making it illegal for a website to allow anonymous reviews. As I said in my first post in this thread, there are First Amendment problems with this. There is free speech value in the anonymity the Internet affords. People often feel more free to have their say, when they don't have to face the possibility of harassment and retaliation from those who disagree (I notice, for instance, that you use an anonymous username on this site). In your initial post in this thread, you criticized a specific piece of legislation that simply bans non-disparagement clauses, and only in so-called "form contracts", which are defined in the bill as "a standardized contract used by a person and imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity for such individual to negotiate the standardized terms.." (Sec. 2-(a)-(3)]). These are a type of contract where people are forced or tricked into signing away their right to criticize the business. I think such legislation is entirely appropriate, and should be passed. I also stand by my view that businesses which use such clauses destroy their own credibility. The fact that they are censoring negative comments will eventually become publicly known, and will hurt their reputation far more than the negative reviews they are blocking.
I don't disagree with the premise of the law that non-disparagment clauses should be illegal or unenforceable. I'm not a lawyer and while the law may seem clear to you the legalese is not clear to non-lawyers. I was basing my interpretation on media reports which is admittedly fraught with problems but also as I said on testimony from one of the witnesses which did not involve one of these clauses. It was a simple libel suit. While I agree that the anonymity gives people a greater freedom to express themselves without fear of "harassment or retaliation" it also allows them to say anything they want without having to take any responsibility for lies or exaggerations. I am not advocating that people be required to publicize their real names on such forums. What I am saying is that the target of their review be allowed access to the identity of person making the claims against them without having to get a lawyer involved. If a patient for example makes a claim that a physician did something, that physician can not provide a meaningful response if they don't have the name of the person which would allow them to review the facts of that interaction. The same is true for many other service providers and merchants. In regards to my own anonymity on this site, I have not made claims about individuals on this site (aside from Dr Oz). Even when there are disagreements here we are discussing it with other anonymous individuals. No claims are being made about anyone's real life persona in this public space. That said, until very recently my profile included a link to my professional website which had my name address and phone number on it. Its gone now only because I left private practice when I joined academia recently and the agreement with my employer does not allow individual professional web sites.Law suits are obviously the avenue of last resort. Its far less costly, quicker, and more effective if the person being attacked can simply post a response. Nothing shines a light on exaggeration and outright lies more than an opportunity to hear from the other side. Its entirely impractical to hire a lawyer to respond to every negative post and doesn’t really serve the purpose in most cases. I agree that overt rants can be obvious but there are equally ridiculous complaints that are only ridiculous when you have inside knowledge of the subject being discussed or the situation. The average lay person will not necessarily be able to identify such complaints. I think its entirely reasonable to require people to provide their identity if they are going to post comments good or bad about a person or business in a public space so that the individual or business is given the opportunity to respond. Without the identity of the person its impossible to collect facts and provide a fair and appropriate response. I said it earlier, the BBB does this on their site. Its interesting to see how often your initial impression can change when the business posts a clear detailed response to the complaint. As they say there are always three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. When you only hear one side your most likely not getting the truth.As a matter of best practices for review websites, it is probably a good idea to allow businesses to post responses to reviews, not only as a matter of fairness, but it also improves the credibility of the website (and some, such as tripadvisor, do this). This way, the business will be able to state its side. However, you are advocating making it illegal for a website to allow anonymous reviews. As I said in my first post in this thread, there are First Amendment problems with this. There is free speech value in the anonymity the Internet affords. People often feel more free to have their say, when they don't have to face the possibility of harassment and retaliation from those who disagree (I notice, for instance, that you use an anonymous username on this site). In your initial post in this thread, you criticized a specific piece of legislation that simply bans non-disparagement clauses, and only in so-called "form contracts", which are defined in the bill as "a standardized contract used by a person and imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity for such individual to negotiate the standardized terms.." (Sec. 2-(a)-(3)]). These are a type of contract where people are forced or tricked into signing away their right to criticize the business. I think such legislation is entirely appropriate, and should be passed. I also stand by my view that businesses which use such clauses destroy their own credibility. The fact that they are censoring negative comments will eventually become publicly known, and will hurt their reputation far more than the negative reviews they are blocking.
I’ve tried to read through all this and admittedly, I have not yet read everything above; however, I suppose my question is why Yelp and other general review sites and apps allow reviews on medical doctors–services such as restaurants, retail, hotels all can be quite accurately reviewed by a consumer. And generally, if a patron says his meal was bad and the review reflects such, it’s most likely true and the consumer/reviewer would have no reason to lie otherwise. Medical practice is a whole different ballgame and some people do not even know the definition of “misdiagnosis” and might mistake a differential diagnosis or emperical or prohylactic measures during a medical workup as a “mistake” or “misdiagnosis” if further found to be something else. Also, the allegations are different to state a meal at a particular restaurant is bad as that is subjective and no one can refute ones opinion on a meal; however, a medical diagnosis is not subjective and a patient cannot rightfully state they were “misdiagnosed” if it wasn’t medically and legally proven, otherwise it’s libel. There is no legal response to a “bad meal” however, to state a provider misdiagnosed is a legal issue and the reviewer is making that public accusation and must be accountable for those words.
You have it exactly backwards. Anonymity allows people to post honest reviews without fear of being sued to death by evil corporations. Having dissatisfied customers is part of being in business. If you can't handle it, get out of the business.Exactly! This comes from MacGeyver who was screaming bloody murder about people's Constitutional Rights to remain anonymous and shielded from government intrusion.(the NSA scare from awhile back...) Now he wants Government Intrusion to "out" people who are voicing their opinions online. I would think this was farcical if I didn't know better. Obviously the Big Healthcare lobby is up in arms about transparency. Just simply follow this OP's trail right back to the interests of Healthcare Big Business.
You have it exactly backwards. Anonymity allows people to post honest reviews without fear of being sued to death by evil corporations. Having dissatisfied customers is part of being in business. If you can't handle it, get out of the business.Exactly! This comes from MacGeyver who was screaming bloody murder about people's Constitutional Rights to remain anonymous and shielded from government intrusion.(the NSA scare from awhile back...) Now he wants Government Intrusion to "out" people who are voicing their opinions online. I would think this was farcical if I didn't know better. Obviously the Big Healthcare lobby is up in arms about transparency. Just simply follow this OP's trail right back to the interests of Healthcare Big Business. To be clear I expect that the government to stay out of our private business and I am demanding that everyone take responsibility for their very public actions against others (restaurant owners, doctors, hair stylists, etc etc). I see no inconsistencies in those positions. And just to educate you so you don't continue expounding on things you know nothing about, the BIG health care industry is all On Board with transparency. They are huge corporations who are all too happy to McDonaldize the delivery of healthcare and assign numbered ratings to doctors because their accountants and mega-corporations are great at playing the system. They will use any drop in a physicians ratings as a club to reduce his/her compensation at their next contract negotiation and they will manipulate the systems overall ratings so the corporation itself looks great. Ratings are not as harmful to the big corporate entities as they are to small businesses. They are dangerous for the little guys who have only a handful of ratings. Their score can be damaged by just one or two bad ratings and they don't have the money to hire companies to artificially boost their ratings like the big guys do.
To be clear I expect that the government to stay out of our private business and I am demanding that everyone take responsibility for their very public actions against others (restaurant owners, doctors, hair stylists, etc etc). I see no inconsistencies in those positions.Obviously my post was designed to point out your inconsistency with the application of the law.(recalling our exchanges about your outrage with the NSA) Another poster pointed out that they had 1st Ammend issues with your ideas. I would add 4th ammend issues as well. How exactly does someone take responsibility for voicing their opinions or experiences? Take responsibility for "their very public actions against others"? What if I was a businessman and I wanted to take action against another businessman because he was feathering his online reviews with what I thought were fake claims of praise? Sounds like advertising to me. Exactly like advertising. Sounds like some folks just want to be in charge of who gets to spew the bull-caca! And they want to pass laws(which have to pass Constitutional Tests) to enforce who gets to spew the bull-caca. People have aright to seek redress and grievances how they feel comfortable and safe. That's how it works effectively. Not the old pat on the back and "Let's just handle this problem of yours in-house shall we?" No. No. That's the old way. That's why they got internets now. Yelp is a great 3rd party system it would seem. Not the old Boss Hog method.