I didn't state or imply they intended anything criminal, although it sounds like you have inferred it.
It should not sound that way to you, as I did not.
All I know is that certain members of that group have posted personal information on people from time to time.
I see that this issue has been addressed. My experience is limited, in that I have only followed these threads for 40,000 messages or so. During that time, I have not seen the behavior you describe. In fact, when I first began posting, I connected an individual's alias to his name, believing that it was widely known. The folks now known as the Webnode 3 chastised me immediately, publicly and by private message. You may remember this incident.
Their code of ethics seems strict and admirable.
Interesting that you ask how the suit announcement "influenced" my opinion. I hadn't and still haven't expressed my opinion on what they did. I have asked questions though. And, I have to ask, what would my opinion matter anyway?
Your self expression in this forum matters to at least one of us<g>, as it would otherwise not be in discussion.
Bringing censorship into it is going too far, in my opinion. The case is not about that.
Not on its face, to be sure. But a pivotal point is whether the factuality of one particular published document can be a cause of action without including other documents in the same group. In this instance, the purported company did not exist. In others, the purported properties (such as mines, patents, software) or deals and contracts referred to did not exist.
Much is being said about the distinction between harm done in the latter case, versus the "educational" intent of the Webnode farce. It will be interesting to see what the court thinks about that.
I am more interested in how a distinction can be made, and justified, between documents to be examined. If Business Week officially takes notice of content at all, on the grounds that they could suffer some loss based on the content, they may be exposing themselves to a larger liability than they originally contemplated. It may not ultimately serve their interests to win this case.
From the complaint, as posted on SI, WebNode's representative provided assurance as requested to BW that the release was factual...
This does not seem to be true. The form seems not to have changed in recent times, and BW has most carefully not asked. This appears to continue the tradition of "wink and nod" surrounding such press releases.
Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but with so very many releases being made every day, I just can't see it leading to the burden of responsibility for all content being put onto every news service for every release. The volume is too massive.
It is likely that some procedural changes will be made, for Business Week and others. And, it seems to me that a statement of accuracy, with teeth behind it, may reduce some of the flood of messages you describe.
While I believe that this would be an improvement, it will cost Business Week and similar services money. Therefore, it will be resisted. We shall see.
Level Head |
