An Update On Brokerate
You can beta test something to death, but sometimes there’s no substitute for the real world. When we began planning Brokerate we struggled with how to handle comments and the potential for abusive behavior. At the time, we thought that we’d provide the platform, appeal to everyone’s sense of decency and let the market take…
You can beta test something to death, but sometimes there’s no substitute for the real world. When we began planning Brokerate we struggled with how to handle comments and the potential for abusive behavior. At the time, we thought that we’d provide the platform, appeal to everyone’s sense of decency and let the market take care of itself. After watching things play out over the first few days, we’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable with the number of mean, trite and foundationless comments. While our goal in creating the site was clearly to provide the consumer with a useful tool, we’ve decided that on balance the comments are too destructive; while we are unapologetic about the need for more transparency and accountability in the profession, we have to listen to our own conscience–which has served us well navigating the sometimes dicey waters of Brownstoner–and balance that need with the fact that peoples’ livelihoods are at stake here. So here’s the plan: We’re keeping the rating system (which has a control in place to limit each user to voting only once for each broker), replacing the comments with a references (if you feel strongly about a broker, you can leave your email for potential clients to contact you), and are going to work over the next few weeks to build more functionality and searchability into the broker profiles (hopefully to include things like neighborhood specialization and lists of closed transactions). We hope to have the changes to the comments section done by the end of the day today. We’d also appreciate everyone’s ideas about additional functionality they would like to see in the future.
Thanks,
Brownstoner
Ed,
For asking for free advice, you’re awfully caustic in gratitude. And if you’re not a Broker, then what do you care?
I posted the most recent case, but if you had follow the link you’ll see that there’s a long string of jurisprudence.
I would post more but I’ve already given you more than you deserve. Let’s just say, sue away. Have fun with it. See how far it gets you.
Thanks for your analysis and your lessons on the nature of karma.
First, we’re not just talking about defamation. We’re talking about loss of business.
By the way, when I read the cases you gave, I took it to mean that the HOST of the “third party website” was immune, not the third party website itself. This means Brokerrates host (i.e., the people who provide the servers, the IP address, etc.) aren’t liable.
Also, it seems the matter was deemed to fall under the jurisdiction of Balinese courts, and that’s why it was dismissed.
In other words, I’m not sure if your evidence proves anything except that you’re not too good at legal analysis.
And by the way, I’m not a Broker. Stop insinuating I’m interested in suing anyone. I’m just throwing issues out there because they seem relevant.
Ed,
I’ll put it simpler: AOL has better lawyers and lobbyists than you do.
Ed,
If you want your own lawyer, hire a lawyer. And then you can ask him if you should waste your money trying to sue Brownstoner for having your name appear on his website (which would be an act as negative in karma as it would be foolish, if I may say so).
Until then, you can check out: http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/topics/defamation_cda.cfm
Mark Andrew Austin v. Crystaltech Web Hosting, et al.
1 CA-CV 04-0823 (Arz. Crt. App., 2006)
Court holds that the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“CDA”) immunizes web hosting company from liability arising out of its hosting of a third party’s website that allegedly contained defamatory statements about plaintiff. Following the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Zeran v. AOL, the Court holds that such immunity exists notwithstanding any notice the web hosting company received concerning the defamatory nature of the content it was hosting. The Court also dismisses plaintiff’s defamation claims against the originator of the content at issue, holding it lacks personal jurisdiction over him. The Court reached this result notwithstanding the fact that this defendant had contracted with an Arizona web hosting company to host the website which contained the defamatory statements at issue. The Court held the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would be unreasonable given the fact he was a non-resident, the parties each operated Bali-related travel services, and the dispute was governed by Bali law.
What if Brokerrate posts a complaint regarding a matter that is open to interpretation and this complaint hurts someone’s business in a meaningful way solely because Brokerrate dissemminated the comment to THOUSANDS of homebuyers through its site? You don’t think Brokerrate has liability in this instance?
Look – I’m sure that Brokerrate will put a disclaimer on its website indicating that opinions which appear are not necessarily those of http://www.brokerrate.com. But should Brokerrate also let those who post know that their opinions could be read by a gazillion readers, and that they may assume liability as individuals if a Broker feels maligned and sues?
Ed,
Get a lawyer. Ask him.
But he should say the following (although this isn’t legal advice or to be construed as a legal opinion):
1) Brownstoner isn’t, “discussing” anything about anybody. He’s providing a forum in which other people may discuss brokers. A subtle distinction, but key.
2) And then your lawyer will point you to libel law where people can say what they like about you as long as it’s true.
3) Upshot? You can sue other people on Brownstoner’s website to remove comments which harm your reputation so long as they’re false. But you can’t sue Brownstoner for providing the forum.
If Brownstoner wants to control the content on his site, he can. But he doesn’t have to. And you can’t make him.
If you want a better, more definitive answer, then get a lawyer. Or YOU spend $100,000 on law school. But this is what you get for free.
If a Broker or Firm specifically asked that you NOT include ratings or comments about them or their agents, would you comply with such request? Are you legally obligated to attain the brokerage’s consent to discuss them in such a forum? If they expressly do not give consent, what would the legal ramifications be?
Subscription fees? You won’t find them on the Foxtons website.
Anon at 12:47:
The DR.Oogle site is not entirely a good basis for comparison. According to http://new-york.doctoroogle.com/faq.cfm/pageID/5#43, “DR.Oogle is a registered dental referral service in the State of California. It receives monthly subscription fees from participating dentists who wish to create a practice listing on DR.Oogle.”
This would seem to encourage a pro-dentist bias on their part (i.e., a bias against negative reviews).
My wife’s experience bears this out. Just last month, she had a wisdom tooth extracted by an oral surgeon in Manhattan. After posting a negative review (the post-surgical pain nearly drove her to the E.R.; she wasn’t given enough pain meds, and the doctor wouldn’t answer his emergency number or respond to voice mails), she received an e-mail stating that the doctor was challenging her review. The next day, his entire entry had been deleted from DR.Oogle, even though all three reviews posted prior to my wife’s were glowingly positive. His name hasn’t appeared in their database since then.
Brokerate is, I hope, more of a labor of love than a subscription fee generation device.