Adult dating sites rip off report

I suppose not all posts on there are fake, but this one was.

The fact that Rip Off Report refused to remove this post, or at least refused to remove my name from it (when it clearly shows in the post I never had contact with or met the person) shows that in the background they are running an unethical website. WTH is happening with people that they need to stoop down to this level? The seedy business ethics of Rip Off Report make my stomach turn.

Instead of appealing directly to gripe sites, some people petition search engines, like Google.

Though exceptions always abound, search engines are generally cooperative when it comes to court orders.

Though site operators intend to maintain their austere deletion dogma, they’ve voluntarily decided to honor certain court orders that compel parties to remove defamatory material.However, in recent months, Ripoff Report executives have tweaked their position on the issue, which we’ll unpack below. You may be thinking: “How are websites legally allowed to keep defamatory information published? In non-legal terms, Section 230 prevents the blaming of website operators, domain registrars and hosts for users’ defamatory actions.”The answer: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”). Section 230 is the reason Facebook isn’t sued every time someone posts a libelous comment on a timeline or via the company’s commenting mechanism.If you want to file a libel claim over an ROR user post or comment, you must sue the person who made the statement(s), not the companies that facilitated the publishing process (website platform, hosts, registrars, et cetera).And no, you can’t sue Google because its search algorithm includes snippets from websites.

Leave a Reply