Share this page
Quick links
Add feed
|
|
The Persuader
My personal blog, started in 2006. No paid or guest posts, no link sales.
Posts tagged ‘libel’
08.09.2022
This isnât a dig at Red Points or Hearst this time, since I received an apology and they did what they said: the DMCA claim notices were withdrawn and they have revised their systems. If anything, Hearst SL wound up quite cordial, as their New York office has tended to be in my dealings with them.
This is a dig at Google who only today sent what appears to be the final confirmation that our URLs have been reinstated.
This sorry saga began on August 17 and essentially Google told people searching for various terms that we were thieves till today.
The fact this virtual monopoly can libel someone with impunityâand has done so for yearsâshould disturb any right-thinking person.
Speaking of Google, we gave in and connected the revised about.shtml page on the Lucire website to a current page. This was a page we hadn’t linked since the 2000s, but kept coming up high on site:lucire.com searches on Google and, formerly, Bing.
Since I typically don’t use Google for searches, and have not done regularly for a dozen years, I had no idea until investigating the collapse of Bing’s index recently. (ItĘźs still just as compromised, despite claiming it has a higher number of results for any given search. I see no real evidence of this.)
Admittedly, people might seek an ‘About’ page, so instead of their reading a 2004 page, we took the content from our licensing website and created a new one. The old one is linked from there, as it’s quite a novelty.
Tags: 2010s, 2020s, 2022, defamation, Google, law, libel, reputation Posted in business, internet, publishing, technology, USA | No Comments »
03.04.2020
I am privy to some of the inner workings at Bauer Media through friends and colleagues, but I didnât expect them to shut up shop in New Zealand, effective April 2.
Depending on your politics, youâre in one of two camps.
TV3, itself part of a foreign company who has made serious cutbacks during the lockdown, said Bauer had approached the government and offered to sell the business to them at a rock-bottom price in the hope of saving the 200-plus jobs there. The government declined. I believe that’s the angle foreign-owned media are adopting here.
Both the PM and the minister responsible for media, Kris Faafoi, have said that Bauer never applied for the wage subsidy, and never approached the government to see if it could be classified as an essential service to keep operating. Indeed, in the words of the PM, âBauer contacted the minister and told him they werenât interested in subsidies.â
Itâs murkier today as there is evidence that Bauer had, through the Magazine Publishersâ Association, lobbied for reclassification for it to be turned down, though the minister continues to say that it had never been raised with him and that Bauer had already committed to shutting up shop.
Outside of âwe said, they saidâ, my takes are, first, it was never likely that the government would want to be a magazine publisher. Various New Zealand governments have been pondering how to deal with state-owned media here, and there was little chance the latest inhabitants of the Beehive would add to this.
We also know that Bauer had shut titles over the years due to poor performance, and Faafoiâs original statement expressly states that the Hamburg-based multinational had been âfacing challenges around viability of their operations here in New Zealand.â
With these two facts in mind, the government would not have taken on the business to turn it around, especially while knowing the owner of Bauer Media (well, 85 per cent of it) has a personal worth of US$3,000 million and the company generated milliards in revenue per annum.
I also have to point to its own harsh decisions over the years in shutting titles. In 2018, Bauerâs own Australian CEO told Ad News: âThereâs a really interesting view that somehow we are here to provide a social service. The reality is weâre here to make money and if we canât make money out of our magazines, weâll sell them or weâll close them.
âWe have an obligation, whether thatâs a public company or private company, to make money for shareholders. If it doesnât make money, why would we do it?â
That, to me, sounds like the corporate position here as well, and no doubt Bauerâs bean counters will have crunched the numbers before yesterdayâs announcement.
Iâve had my own ideas how the stable could have evolved but itâs easy to talk about this with hindsight, so I wonât. Enough people are hurting.
But Iâd have applied for whatever the government offered to see if I could keep things going for a little while longer. Even if the writing was on the wall, it would have been nice to see my colleagues have a lifeline. Get one more issue of each title out after June. Maybe Iâm just not as brutal. I mean, Iâve never defamed Rebel Wilson as Bauer’s Australian publications have. Maybe itâs different for a small independent.
If I may use a sporting analogy, Bauer hasnât let their players on to the field and kept them in the changing room, and more’s the pity.
One comment I received yesterday was that Bauer wouldnât have been in a position to pay its staff even with the government subsidy, with no advertising sales being generated. Iâm not so sure, with annual global revenues of over âŹ2,000 million. New Zealand was probably too unimportant to be saved by Bauer’s bosses in Hamburg. I guess weâll never know.
Tags: 2020, Aotearoa, Auckland, Australia, Bauer, business, COVID-19, Fairfax Press, Germany, government, Hamburg, Jacinda Ardern, Kris Faafoi, libel, magazines, media, Mediaworks, New Zealand, pandemic, politics, publishing, The Spinoff Posted in business, media, New Zealand, politics, publishing | No Comments »
25.05.2018

Tristan Schmurr/Creative Commons
Welcome to another of my âI told you they were dodgyâ posts. This time, itâs not about Facebook or Google (which, finally, are receiving the coverage that should have been metered out years ago), but Wikipedia.
The latest is on a Wikipedia editor called âPhilip Crossâ, a story which Craig Murray has been following on his blog.
Start with this one, where Murray notes that Cross has not had a single day off from editing Wikipedia between August 29, 2013 and May 14, 2018, including Christmas Days.
And this one.
Both note that Cross edits Wikipedia entries on antiwar and antiestablishment figures, making them more negative and stripping away the positive, and concerns raised by other Wikipedia editors amount to naught. Cross is known to be against the UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, and has devoted a lot of time to George Galloway’s page. However, he likes right-wing Times columnists Oliver Kamm and Melanie Phillips.
Matt Kennard Tweeted on May 12:
while on May 21, Twitter user Leftworks said:
In other words, suggesting that someone play by the rules on Wikipedia will get you threatened with a ban from Wikipedia.
Now you get the idea, you can check out Murrayâs subsequent blog posts on the subject:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/emma-barnett-a-classic-philip-cross-wikipedia-operation/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-msm-promotion-operation-part-3/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/philip-cross-madness-part-iv/
Whether you believe Philip Cross is one person or not, it highlights what Iâve said on this blog and formerly on Vox in the 2000s: that certain editors can scam their way to the top and not be questioned. I know first-hand that publicly criticizing Wikipedia could get me hate mail, as had happened last decade when I was subjected to days of email abuse from one senior editor based in Canada. That time I merely linked to a piece which talked about the dangers of Wikipedia and how some editors had scammed itâall that editor unwittingly did with her emails was confirm that position (no one says that all scammers are smart) and since then, observing Wikipedia has cemented it. Interestingly, both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipediaâs remaining co-founder Jimmy Wales are quick to defend Cross, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that âheâ is biased.
Facebookâs idea of using Wikipedia to combat âfake newsâ is about as moronic a decision one can make.
Now that there are voices adding to my own, and on far more serious matters than non-existent cars, I can only hope people will, at the least, treat Wikipedia with caution. If you choose to stop donating to them, I wouldnât blame you.
Tags: 2010s, 2018, abuse, blogosphere, Craig Murray, internet, Jimmy Wales, law, libel, Murdoch Press, politics, publishing, The Times, UK, Wikipedia Posted in internet, media, politics, publishing, technology, UK, USA | 1 Comment »
22.11.2013
Seven months after Google blacklisted our websites over false allegations of malware, I can say that the traffic to some has not recovered. And to prove that Google continues to publish libel based on its highly dubious systems, here are two screen shots from my browser tonight, which I saw when trying to access bjskosherbaskets.com, the site that hackers linked to back in April, where they placed some malware.


I’ve noted here that we were hacked back in April, and we fixed everything within hours. But good luck getting off Google’s blacklists. They claim six to seven hours, whereas our experience was six to seven days. (No surprise: it took Google four years to remove my private data from Adsense, while my dispute with them over retained Blogger data, which they promised to delete in 2010, is ongoing. Things happen very slowly in California.)
Bjskosherbaskets.com, meanwhile, is finding that seven months, not seven days, are still not enough to get off a Google blacklist.
Browsers will block the site based on Google’s claims. Yet when you read why Google has blocked it, there is no reason: even the big G says the website is clean, and free from malware. It says, rightly, that it detected some more than 90 days ago, but there isn’t any now.
The question is: why does Google continue to ruin the reputation of a website whose owners have, like us, done everything they could to remedy a situation? And why is libel permissible?
There are just too many breaches of ethics by this company, yet it beggars belief that it still ranks as the number-one website in the world.
At the very least, internet security companies need to stop relying on Google, whose systems are faulty, and who dedicates the grand total of two part-timers to the task of malware detection.
Tags: California, defamation, ethics, Google, law, libel, technology, USA Posted in business, internet, publishing, technology, USA | 5 Comments »
27.05.2013
I found Carla Schroder’s blog post about Social Media Todayâs battle with Google’s less-than-stellar malware detector last week, and happened on it again today.
The title says it all: ‘GoogleâWe Don’t Care, We Don’t Have to’.
As with the cases I had followed (such as this one), Carla noted that their sites were clean:
So, for the last 90 days Google found no problems. That’s a pretty shabby record for a known malware distributor. The short story is none of the Social Media Today sites were infected with malware, and Google’s hysteria took down over 175 sites. And how is their warning not libelous?
And:
There is no due process, no meaningful appeal, and Google won’t talk to anyone. And they get away with it because they have a giant monopoly on search and Internet services.
To close, she writes:
When a kid throws a rock through your store window, she buys you a new window. Doesn’t Google owe a whole lot of people for disrupting their businesses for a day?
So ⌠rock, meet hard place, our brave new Google world devoid of humans, guilty until proven innocent, and no penalties for Google’s mistakes.
I won’t go on about our battle, since regular readers are more than aware of our many concerns with Google. Carla says more succinctly what I have been saying about Google’s malware procedures for a good while. They’re broken, and Google either needs to put in more effort than the two part-time guys working in that department, on whom far too much of the internet depends, or stop involving itself in a business that it’s not very good at, especially if it publishes libel regularly.
Tags: ethics, Google, internet, law, libel, media, publishing, technology, USA Posted in business, internet, publishing, technology, USA | 4 Comments »
25.04.2013
That was an interesting experiment. Although Lucire Men is still clear (for now), Google decided it would play silly buggers a few hours after we put our (clean) ad server code back on Autocade:

But why? Here’s what Google says:

which means: we can’t find anything wrong with this site since April 8, even though our last scan was on the 23rd. Really? There has been nothing wrong for 15 days, but you’ll still block our site? (Note: Google did not block this site on the 23rd.)
Let’s go to Google Webmaster Tools to see what it says there:

That’s right: nothing. There’s nothing wrong with the site.
Maybe we’ve been flagged somewhere else, then? How about Stop Badware?

Nope, we’re all fine there, too.
In fact, even Google is wrong when it says there were problems on April 8âanother sign of its malware bot reading from a cache instead of fresh pages, because we say we fixed everything on April 6. Well, here’s what Google itself says about Autocade when you go into Webmaster Tools in more depth:

which correlates with the claims we have made all along: our ad server got hacked on April 6 (NZST), and we sorted it within hours that day.
We’re interested to see if the false malware warnings can carry on for a monthâafter all, Google will block a blog for six months even though it says it will lift a block in 48 hours after an investigation. Things take a bit longer there than they claim. There’s a case of one gentleman who has had his site blocked by Google for two months for no reason. I’m sure many, many others are being wrongly identified by Googleâand there are far too many companies relying on the Californian company’s hypocrisy in identifying malware.
The Google belief that webmasters are wrongly claiming there to be false positives is looking more dubious by the day.
PS.: The last post at this forum entry is interesting: Google blocks a website based on stale data. The website where the malware allegedly was did not even exist, but it still triggered a warning at Google. The webmaster writes, ‘The site concerned doesn’t exist and more to the point, there is no DNS record for it eitherâso it cannot exist. / The IP which was once assigned to it is now assigned to someone else.’ That was in March. Judging by the articles online, Google’s been having problems with this particular bot since the beginning of 2013. The sooner they retire the program, the better, I say.âJY
Tags: Autocade, bugs, defamation, errors, ethics, Google, law, libel, media, publishing, USA Posted in internet, publishing, technology, USA | 6 Comments »
11.04.2013
Here’s Google’s Webmaster Tools this morning.
Apparently, now it says there has been nothing wrong at the Lucire website since April 6. Which is what we’ve been saying for six days.
Gee, we all must have imagined those attack warnings for the last six days. Google’s record now shows they never happened. As it’s Google, it must be right.

I suspect Google has its units wrong again. I remember Blogger’s two-day review turned out taking six months, so two days there meant two quarters. I understand that Google’s malware bot supposedly does a review in five hours, but maybe they confused that with five days.
Tags: bugs, Google, hacking, law, libel, USA Posted in internet, technology, USA | No Comments »
11.04.2013
This is from my good friend Alexandru Dutulescu. Where I come from, this is libellous, since it is, well, a load of bollocks. In the delusions of Googleland, presumably, this is an innocent computer error. I can’t believe how often Google gets away with this stuff just by fooling people and telling them their motto is ‘Don’t be evil.’

Tags: California, Chrome, defamation, ethics, Google, law, libel, USA Posted in internet, publishing, USA | No Comments »
|