Should MSE comply with companies' requests to remove negative posts about them?

Nice_One,_Centurion

A while back, I came to the MSE forums looking for help regarding problems with an online company - posheyes.co.uk - who took money from my credit card but never sent goods (fortunately, I was eventually able to reclaim the money from my credit card company).


However, a forum member working for Posh Eyes asked for the thread to be removed and the forum moderators complied. The thread didn't contain anything inflammatory other the facts of the case, so presumably the company just didn't like the negative publicity.


So my question is this: is it right that MSE forums should be censored in this way? I, for one, believe not. The MSE forums are an appropriate platform on which to (a) seek help with financial problems; and (b) raise awareness about dubious companies / websites / services. Would it be right if, say, Barclays (the most complained about bank) asked MSE to remove all negative content related to it?


Of course, MSE is entitled to allow whatever content it likes on its forum pages - but by deleting threads that bring problems to public attention, is it doing the right thing? Is this a disservice to its members?

tomjonesrules

I guess they find it easier to remove the threads than contemplate the costs of litigation.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Take notes before negative posts taken down. Have a means to do so this is corporate bullying in my eyes.

Nice_One,_Centurion

tomjonesrules wrote: »

I guess they find it easier to remove the threads than contemplate the costs of litigation.

Well maybe; but I can't help thinking that the negative publicity a company would get from sueing MSE would be even more damaging! And if a company like, say, Barclays (from my example earlier) asked MSE to remove negative comment, I would hope that MSE would stand up to them and say that the public have a right to comment if they have received bad service!

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Companies must be forced to give excellent customer service and products. Taking our money for rubbish customer service and products is bad for the consumer, Corporations must not be seen to get away with these life destroying things because they get their mits on our money without good reason.

scheming_gypsy

Yep course they should.

Just because somebody posts something on a forum doesn't mean it's true; obviously not saying that your issue wasn't legitimate but, who knows? All it takes is for a competitor to start slagging a company off and making up stories, company loses sales etc and then tries to sue Martin / the forum.

Nice_One,_Centurion

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Yep course they should.

Just because somebody posts something on a forum doesn't mean it's true; obviously not saying that your issue wasn't legitimate but, who knows? All it takes is for a competitor to start slagging a company off and making up stories, company loses sales etc and then tries to sue Martin / the forum.

Slippery slope though isn't it? I'd be less trusting of a website that only had good things to say. And what would happen if, say, Amazon started removing all bad reviews because manufacturers threatened them?

Companies would do better to listen to people's complaints and try to improve.

Valli

Nice_One,_Centurion wrote: »

Companies would do better to listen to people's complaints and try to improve.

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

gotta be one of my favourite usernames - welcome to the forums Nice One!

scheming_gypsy

Nice_One,_Centurion wrote: »

Slippery slope though isn't it? I'd be less trusting of a website that only had good things to say. And what would happen if, say, Amazon started removing all bad reviews because manufacturers threatened them?

Companies would do better to listen to people's complaints and try to improve.

it is indeed, although strangely enough it only seems to happen regarding smaller companies. Not sure whether that's because the bigger companies can handle the odd lost customer whereas a small independent will feel the hit.
One site I used to use would edit any threads / posts slagging off small shops but Pets at Home get constant abuse

Valli

That would fit in with the training I got when I was a CSA (customer services assistant) for a leisure company. We had it drummed into us that UNHAPPY customers complain far more, to more people, than happy ones. So a small company would find it more difficult to override customer complaints; also (if you think about it) a customer, or potential customer would google a company and get more negative hits - because big companies will have, almost by default, more 'news' type web hits and (statistically) fewer complaints, thus 'skewing' results in favour of big companies. So the newsy articles will show up 'earlier' in the google search.

Now I'm guessing here...but not a wild guess.

If this is indeed the case then small companies, with fewer resources less able to 'build' a web presence are going to struggle because one upset, angry customer posting on a forum is going to leave a 'footprint' that comes to the front page of a google search.

Even with the best will in the world you can upset people - hence my 3 unhappy e bay customers...and my less than 100% feedback listing. Now all those buyers had a problem - but chose to leave a neg rather than contact me! I'm not a business seller and I'm not that bothered...but if you bid on a used item...

poet123

No they shouldn't remove posts. Equally, both sides should be able and willing to back up their story in court if a post contains potentially damaging material.