Never mind the reverse SEO, what about perverse censorship?
Well, as for my client, this discussion is all moot now. Due to so much invasion of his personal privacy as websites that purport to list his phone number, photos of him, and so forth, he has opted to remove his site from the internet.
(This was a rare case where his site was intended to have a limited audience, limited to people he physically gave his business card out to. Had I realized that in the beginning, I could have done things differently in designing his site and would not have done any SEO on the site to begin with. But now that his name has been broadcast throughout the interweb, the damage has been done.)
Unfortunately, as we all know, nothing ever ceases to exist once it has been published on the internet.
I'd still be interested in knowing what "factual dispute" anyone via Skeptive could have with his website, seeing as how the only information that was on the site was his personal bio and the titles and images of his artwork. Was someone perhaps disputing the name he gave one of his paintings? If so, is that something that should necessitate a public alarm on Skeptive?
I have a problem with the whole idea of flagging sites in that manner. Maybe it's just me.
That being said, and there are no disputes listed when someone does "check out the site", you have still done a disservice to the integrity of the website by having your site's listings say his site " is implicated in the following disputes on Skeptive: ..." Seeing that come directly below his website listing in Google is, in itself, a disservice to his website, because it leads one to believe that a factual dispute does indeed exist when there isn't such a dispute, and the implication enough is enough to keep some people from checking out either site.
Originally Posted by matgerke
But as I say, he's out of business on the web now anyway, so it's all mute and I've lost a customer.
No, it's not just you. And, it's not just Skeptive. It's also Web of Trust and others, where anyone with 'net connectivity can smear anyone with no fear of retribution.
Even the brand names, such as McAfee Site Advisor, are shams, as anyone can register to be an "advisor."
Nor a tyrannies of the masses limited to ruination of reputations, as is evidenced by the quality of what now passes for "news reporting" on the web.
It's all free; and, you get what you pay for.
PS: Need a good rating? I'm a McAfee Site Advisor.
Last edited by deepsand; 02-20-2012 at 12:02 AM.
Tossing in a close relative of all this poppycockery bringing ruination, can you say, 'McCarthyism'?
Well, the technology does have the advantage of allowing of trial both in absentia and by proxy, which brings the benefit to the condemned - err, I mean the accused - of not having to endure the burden of presenting himself for trial.
This whole premise of letting the internet think for itself, or even collect and flag 'disputed' information is only a snowflake away from a complete tort against the web community as a whole. We humans were disseminating online information long before any form of censorship appeared on the horizon and managed quite nicely.
That the new and uninformed users need someone to hold their hand for the first while (or forever in many instances, it would appear) is clearly evident goes without saying; that we need some self appointed private internet security service doing it WITH MACHINES, can clearly be disputed. That's what I see here--taking the hand holding just a bit too far into la-la-land, and taking the fabric of the web down with it.
Last edited by weegillis; 02-21-2012 at 12:49 AM.
Sadly, the typical user wants to be spoon-fed; he possesses neither the disposition nor the skills for discerning diamond from quartz, gold from iron pyrite, silver from zinc. He eschews uncertainty. No maybe for him, but only yes or no; no gray, only black and white.
He will gladly suspend all disbelief in exchange for being relieved on the burden of making decisions, accepting that Google knows all, that all that it presents is treasure.
And, this while the Web increasingly becomes dross.
Fortunately there are diamonds amongst the quartz, gold amongst the pyrite, silver amongst the zinc... As dross as it looks, things are never what they appear--unless of course we let censorship prevail.
Originally Posted by deepsand
So long as the dross prevails, the masses will turn to whoever will make the decisions for them.