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

Apparently, uses the Checkmate URL checking system to filter
out unreliable websites. Thus, you won't be able to see the annotation I
put on the offending post mentioned in my last message.

bob wyman

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:45 PM Bob Wyman <> wrote:

> 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 23:06:42 UTC