Has A4U been bullied by Adfero?

[Flightmapping]

Tweet

:tdNow I know this forum has to be moderated to prevent slanging matches and spam, but why has this thread about Adfero, which had some legitimate debate, had a number of comments about Adfero deleted?

Meanwhile, Sean Hofer of Adfero is allowed to use the thread to defend his company - surely there are some double standards here?

I know I'm not the only one here to have had a bad experience with Adfero (I've put brief details of this in my blog, more to follow when I've calmed down) - but they should not be allowed to go around censoring any comments posted by myself and others who have had a number of customer service or employment issues with them.

This will not do - an internet company providing news in the 21st century should be able to take a bit of negative commentary on the chin, and should not have to threaten other blogs and forums which say things they don’t like.

Anyway, their lawyers have probably gone home by now, so please comment, tweet etc before they come back in the morning.

Thanks,

James

[tomj]

Did Google cache the thread again before they vanished?

[Flightmapping]

A4U only tells you when a new post has been made, I don't think it tells you when a comment is being deleted.

I can guess what happened, but then that would be unsubstantiated, so I'll stay quiet and get me' tea.

[Flightmapping]

Right, have had my fill, but found this link to another forum where a similar discussion took place. Take note of:

"Guys, Adfero are not very happy about this discussion, and to be honest I'm a bit suspicious about motives here too.

{snip}

I've removed posts as a result of the takedown notice from Adfero."

It looks like this company will threaten anyone who says anything against them. How much trust should clients place in a so-called news provider which is so hell-bent on destroying the truth?

Is it any surprise that Adfero is an anagram of Do Fear?

[Lawcom]

In a nutshell as soon as you allow other companies to dictate your content you're f**ked ...

[Michael_Anthony]

Actually, this kind of over protective moderation has been going on for many years, as I know from unfortunate first hand experience.

Can't say I blame Matt and co. though - they are quite within their rights to run their forum any way they want, and if they see a possibility of legal problems then it makes sense to simply make the problem go away.

This forum is still one of the least moderated around and you can make negative comments here with a fairly good chance of having the post left alone. Anyone familiar with a ridiculously overmoderated forum such as webmasterworld will know that this is the case - on wmw you can't discuss anything specific, post url's or even have a vaguely critical view of anything they say or do, which is probably why they kicked me off some years ago.

So before you all get mad, have a thought for Matt and his gang - I promise you that they do a much better job than many other forums, and for far lower returns.

[Lawcom]

Webmasterworld drives me insane lol and simply because of the way they are I rarely go there now... and maybe that's just it, if you don't allow your members freedom of thought and be able to post negitively or to show references that supports the point then you'll simply lose members and have less of a forum..

Sometimes ( although forums are not a democracy) you have to defend your members and take a strong stance against outside companies that want to influence your content..

[Flightmapping]

Michael,

Yes, that is a very good point, hence the title of my thread being about the threats from Adfero.

Enough said for now.

[Shimrit]

Having worked as a moderator for many years on very high profile sites, I know first hand that sometimes it's best to piss off some forum members than risk being sued for libel.

Libel laws in this country are insane and unfortunately this means companies like Adfero (or others) can get away with bullying websites to get negative comments removed. Unfortunately for them, their reputation is already pretty bad.

My own experience with them wasn't actually that bad at all, but I know quite a few people who've had entirely different experiences and they seem to be in the majority.

I'm not sure getting known for trying to cover up bad press is going to help them be seen as any better.

[Lawcom]

Shimrit .. can you tell me how many times were you actually in court ... my guess is never .. and that's the reality, for all the stick waving, sites tend to panic at a legally worded document or email.. and if you take the law and bend or focus it on protectionism, it is very easy for any decent lawyer to make it sound like a done deal.. when in fact it is certainly not..

I would say as a moderator you've had a few scares and paniced, would that not be more correct..

out of the thousands + thousands of sites can you list the ones who have had to defend there content in court and then those who were penalised ..

For libel to actually be an option the statment must be defamatory, which means that it must be a false statement to the plaintiff's discredit.

Fair comment is allowed if it can be shown that the statement is comment on facts truly stated. From experience..

Given the panic mentality it would mean that no customers are allowed to say they had a bad service from a company or business, or say that some product is crap, it's just nonsense..

I think if you stop looking at legal issues as danger or risk and more a business practice it would give a more level approach, strip out the fear factor and look at the facts...

Your first reaction to anyone trying to use legal letters to curtail your business or content .. is "go blow yourself"

[Michael_Anthony]

lawcom, you make a very good point.

I had a situation myself around a year ago where I made some pretty nasty comments about an online ad agency and found myself in receipt of a threatening solicitor's letter promising all sorts of silly legal consequences if I didn't retract my comments.

I ignored it. Nothing happened.

This said, my view remains that Matt and co are not cowards, they are just avoiding unnecessary distractions and getting on with what they do best, which is running this place.

And let's face it, why should they accept even a 1% risk of action following threats if it can be avoided?