Re: Some web sites collect salacious gossip and charge $2000 to remove it

As a demonstration, I've annotated one of the apparently false claims about
Guy Babock. To see that annotation, follow this link

If more people knew that annotation was possible, and if better support for
making it was available, do you think it would help reduce the frequency of
these problems?

bob wyman

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:30 PM Bob Wyman <> wrote:

> Tom,
> When you write "Google, et. al. encourages this type of behavior" are you
> saying that you believe that Google *intentionally* encourages this
> behavior or simply that the availability of powerful search tools, such as
> those provided by Google, tends to encourage this behavior by making it
> more possible? Please forgive my asking, but, on the Internet, it is
> sometimes hard to tell exactly what someone's words mean...
> For the record, the Times article does indicate that Google is, and has
> been, willing to help address these issues:
>> "Until recently, Google would remove a website from your results only if
>> it could cause financial damage, such as by exposing your Social Security
>> number. Now *Google will remove other harmful content*, including
>> revenge porn and private medical information. At the end of 2019, it
>> introduced a new category of information it will take out of your results:
>> “sites with exploitative removal practices.” *Google also started
>> down-ranking some of the “complaint” sites*, including Ripoff Report."
>> [Emphasis added.]
> What more do you think they should or could do?
> Part of the problem here is that those who are accused on
> these "complaint" sites have no way to respond in place to the claims that
> are made against them. But, we could fix that. It seems to me that the
> Babcock's, and others, would have benefited from tools that allowed them to
> annotate the improper posts with their own discoverable statements
> contesting the claims made. A combination of the W3C Annotation Standard +
> (CredWeb and/or ClaimReview) would allow that. For instance, an extension
> to, or a variant, could facilitate entering structured data
> annotations such as ClaimReview statements. If such annotations were made,
> then users of web browsers might be able to see a warning flag saying
> "Contents of this page are disputed" even if neither the complaint author
> nor the site itself provided a means to contest complaints. What do you
> think?
> bob wyman
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:59 PM Tom Jones <>
> wrote:
>> Not sure why, but Google, et al. encourages this type of behavior. As
>> long as lies work, lies will proliferate.  It seems like Google should be
>> the one to pay the $2000 rip off.
>> Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom

Received on Saturday, 30 January 2021 22:45:32 UTC