Why Is NBCUniversal Threatening To Report Commenters They Disagree With To Their Employers?

from the that's-bizarre dept

This one is a little bizarre. David Seaman, a contributor to Business Insider, claims that he lost his contributor status at the site following a dispute he had with an NBCUniversal employee, Anthony Quintano, concerning NBC's coverage of both SOPA/PIPA and NDAA. The details are a bit complex, but I've emailed with David a few times. It appears he posted some comments on NBC Universal's Google+ page, complaining about their lack of coverage on both issues:
The comment seems perfectly reasonable, but NBCUniversal deleted it, and later claimed that it was spam:
It's pretty difficult to see how that's spam, and David said so:
Following this, Quintano told David that he had contacted Business Insider to complain about David's statements.
This is the part that seems the most troubling. Why would NBCUniversal employees decide that contacting someone else's employer, because they don't like his comments, makes any sense at all. That's just outright bullying.

Either way, David then alerted his editor at Business Insider, who said:
I think it might be best if we revoked your account for now. We've drastically cut back on our contributors recently and while we really appreciate your posts there have been far too many of these types of contentious issues lately.
Now, there are all sorts of ways to look at this, and I'd almost be more inclined to question how Business Insider handled this, rather than NBCUniversal. The second one of your writers gets into a little bit of controversy, you cut them loose? Way to look out for your writers, BI.

So I'm not sure I buy the story that NBCUniversal is the reason Seaman is no longer a contributor to BI, but it is a fact that Quintano directly threatened to contact Business Insider to complain about David's statements. It's downright slimy for NBCUniversal employees to threaten people to contact their employers because NBCUniversal doesn't agree with their statements online. Disagree, fine. Hell, I don't even have a huge problem if NBCUniversal wants to be anti-internet and block comments it doesn't like (as it was doing here). But to then threaten to impact someone's livelihood because you don't like their comments? That's just bullying.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

    What the hell.

    This is disgraceful, and all around, bad PR for NBCUniversal. One more reason why I say...

    Viva 'La Revolution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      demented, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 12:09pm

      Re: What the hell.

      And the revolution can't come fast enough. Not a big one, just big enough to throw out Congress, pass new regulations keeping them from taking money or being elected over and over, add stiff punishments for all ethical/legal trespasses, and bring in some new blood.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:15pm

    Sounds like "wrongful termination" would be a contender.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:28pm

    I have no problems with the NBC/Universal guy trying to contact an employer to complain about someone, that is just his right, he can complain about anything really, but he should pay for it, he is not in the right here and we all as a society should put him in his place, just because the reasons behind of what he did, I can see other situations where people would be proud if he did it, like if he was denouncing a real criminal or something, discrimination is a tool, how you use that tool are the real problem here, the guy is a douche and should suffer and if NBC/Universal approves that kind of behavior and do nothing they too should face the music along with Business Insider, which should have brushed off that kind of thing if it was for some nonsense like it was in this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:28pm

    How dare you highlight how we are refusing to cover important issues! The only things that are news are what we report on.
    Now we would have liked to cover these issues but we had to bump them so we could spend 5 minutes covering a video of puppies that went "viral", how dare you question our power an authority on these issues!

    Of course they meant to say these things once they were firmly in control under SOPA/PIPA et al, so they just got a little ahead of themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vegetaman (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:34pm

      Time is of the essence.

      More like reporting on videos that went viral weeks ago and are already are old news.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Peter, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 7:07am

      How right you are

      Long gone are the days when they reported the news. In an attempt to be in front of everyone else, they have now moved into the arena of 'setting the news agenda' . That is of course just a sliver away from 'controlling' the news or even, proven by the action of a now defunct British paper, 'manufacturing' the news or even 'interfering' with the news.

      If any of us think that the definition of 'news' is anything other than 'generates revenue', we are sadly deluding ourselves.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Else, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:31pm

    BI

    Business Insider: seriously? Unbecoming of the news trade. F-

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:33pm

    1. Why is "Business Insider" employing someone that doesn't look old enough to have a drivers license?

    2. Why is this David person going on NBC's website and lying about the DMCA being able to be used against foreign pirate sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:42pm

      Re:

      "2. Why is this David person going on NBC's website and lying about the DMCA being able to be used against foreign pirate sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid?"

      [citation needed]

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

        Re: Re:

        Even tho I know that you're a willfully ignorant troll:

        David: "Why do these companies need SOPA? There's already an abundance of options available to companies who want unauthorized distribution of their content tackled (DMCA)"

        He's a liar.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You do understand, or maybe you don't (not seeming very bright), that the OTHER countries of the world have their own laws. Having the US pass a law to try to save them the trouble of using the other countries laws seems stupid. The US is not King of the planet, and US law allows them to deal with US things. UK law allows them to deal with UK things. etc etc etc.
          Considering how Universal has misused DMCA takedowns, we have a prime example of the harm this type of law will cause. They overreach constantly, trying to create new versions of the law that exist only in their own minds.
          Creating a giant firewall for the US is completely against what the US government preaches for everyone else, and pretty much shits on the Constitution.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Having the US pass a law to try to save them the trouble of using the other countries laws seems stupid.
            Isn't it less expensive than invading?
            They overreach constantly, trying to create new versions of the law that exist only in their own minds.
            See:Golden Rule
            Creating a giant firewall for the US is completely against what the US government preaches for everyone else, and pretty much shits on the Constitution.
            For me, as an IT professional, this is not even the scary part. They want to put up a firewall that doesn't block hackers and on top of that, fuck with DNSSEC. Allowing these butt puppets to make laws concerning internet access is like giving a 2 year old a footlocker full of hand grenades.After all, just because 30 Heifers agree, doesn't mean it's OK, or should even be tolerated.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 2:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Considering how Universal has misused DMCA takedowns

            oh look, it's another willfully blind freetard complaining about some incorrect DMCA takedowns while ignoring the fact that content is being shamelessly ripped off every hour due to the lack of contemporary internet copyright law.

            What an effective and convincing rebuttal.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I already read that and I'm still awaiting your citation. Where did he say that the DMCA can be used against foreign sites? Or is this a result of your reading comprehension problems.

          Also see

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Treaties_Implemen tation_Act

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

      Re:

      "1. Why is "Business Insider" employing someone that doesn't look old enough to have a drivers license?"

      A: Seriously? What does this question have to do with anything?

      B: Can you post a link to your picture so that we can judge you by your apparent age? Otherwise, no fair.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:53pm

        Re: Re:

        Also, how do you know when that picture was taken? Maybe it was taken yesterday, last week, last year, or last decade? Maybe he looks older now, maybe he looks younger? Did you ever think of that!!!

        (I can't believe I'm feeding the trolls).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Jan 17th, 2012 @ 9:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I neither look nor sound my age (which is a great comfort to my vanity). Does this mean my opinion doesn't count?

          If it makes you feel any better, this troll is irritating me too. I've stopped myself answering four or five times.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:13pm

      Re:

      "2. Why is this David person going on NBC's website and lying about the DMCA being able to be used against foreign pirate sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid?"

      He obviously meant with in reason, which trying to force non-US site into following US copyright law is blatantly not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Something copyrighted in the US isn't in the public domain overseas.

        The US has no redress for sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid, etc right now. And you know it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Something copyrighted in the US isn't in the public domain overseas."

          That would depend on the laws of the country in question.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Something copyrighted in the US isn't in the public domain overseas."

          IF the country in question isn't a signatory to the Berne copyright agreement then it most certainly is in the public domain in that country just as English work, for example, was before the United States signed on not all that far back and US publishers reprinted the work of English authors without remitting as much as a penny to them or their English publisher.

          United States law does NOT apply extra-territorially. There are cases where under treaty some laws that are in line with the treaty are respected in other countries. Outside of that U.S. law applies only in the United States, it's possessions and territories. Nowhere else.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 8:09pm

      Re:

      NBC undercover in this thread....sad

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:40pm

    We all just chillens and big corporations is our daddies. You wanna get someone in trouble, you go complain to his corporate daddy. He'll get switched with an official disciplinary action right away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:44pm

    Just submitted this story to business insider as an anonymous tip!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 4:58pm

    Mystery

    It is good to see people like David Seaman trying to get SOPA and the NOAA into the mainstream news or for other important businesses to take a stand against this injustice.

    He clearly seems to have annoyed them in some way. It seems odd to ban him, unban him and then complain to his employer who seems to have agreed even if to keep NBC happy. He was using a business account it seems.

    Beyond that then since I did not see this full exchange I can't say for sure what has gone on here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 8:52pm

      Re: Mystery

      It is good to see people like David Seaman trying to get ... and the NOAA into the mainstream


      ...poor meteorologists just want some attention!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mischab1, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:00pm

    Unfortunately I can't look at Google+ from work. :-( Based on the screen shots I'm going to guess that he linked to whatever 'We The People' is one too many times.

    On the one hand, that comment is very pertinent and doesn't come across as spammy at all. On the other hand, if he put essentially the same comment on every single article it sure would feel like spam to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:05pm

    Maybe we should ask Anthony. All public info on his Twitter page.

    Anthony Quintano
    @AnthonyQuintano
    Senior Community Manager for @NBCNews.
    Track my health at @AQhealth.
    Email: Anthony.Quintano@nbcuni.com
    Phone: (212) 413-5364
    http://www.anthonyquintano.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:18pm

    And this is exactly why I post from home

    On Techdirt. If I post from work, vindictive Mike might call up my employer and thank them employing one of the many, many anonymous cowards that make up part of the wonderful community on Techdirt providing insightful and humorous content that help us get through our day.

    Now time to get mindnumbingly drunk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Sam Gelfand, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:31pm

    If you want the truth:

    I was following David's articles about the NDAA with the intention of keeping up with the issue and the ultimate goal of writing an article for a small community oriented website I (rather infrequently) contribute to. While David did indeed bring awareness to legislation like the NDAA and SOPA, his articles became more and more focused on himself rather than the issues he was writing about.

    First, he was banned from Twitter for spamming when he repeatedly tweeted the same text and the same link to his articles over and over again. They explained this to him directly, but he insisted that Twitter was lying and he was the victim of censorship -- saying they only banned him (the ban was later lifted, btw) because he dared to write about the NDAA. Even though a quick search on Twitter reveals that there are is a huge amount of anti-NDAA sentiment on Twitter and there is not a single instance of anybody being banned for NDAA content.

    Then the same thing happened on NBC's Google+ page and David once again alleged that NBC was trying to silence him and another user. He encouraged his readers to flood NBC's page with NDAA comments on every article, which many did -- without being banned.

    David is currently trying to bring attention to his cause by posting Youtube videos with titles such as "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" to mislead people into hearing his information.

    And by the way, not once in the weeks that Mr. Seaman discussed the NDAA in his column did he ever present a factual argument to back up his claims of what the bill would lead to. This is not a reporter we're talking about, this is an attention whore.

    I'm writing this not because I support the NDAA (which prevents Guantanamo from being closed and codifies the practice of indefinitely detaining suspected Al Qaida members, both of which I disagree with) but because the internet is overflowing with people like David who would rather become famous with lies than encourage change with the truth. And I loathe those kind of people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DS, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

      Re: If you want the truth:

      Sam's a troll who has been harassing me on Twitter. Just FYI folks. I have screenshots proving this.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 5:50pm

        Re: Re: If you want the truth:

        After reading the paragraph

        "David is currently trying to bring attention to his cause by posting Youtube videos with titles such as "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" to mislead people into hearing his information."

        I sense that his post is satire. Either that, or he is drunk and has gone so far into the field of making things up that he's become delusional.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 6:11pm

        Re: Re: If you want the truth:

        David-
        Why are you being intellectually dishonest and suggesting the DMCA provides content holders with redress against sites like what.cd, waffles and demonoid?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 6:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

          Because it does the same thing that SOPA does basically but without the censorship provisions in it?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 6:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

            You are either lying or ignorant of the subject you are gaining notoriety for.

            The DMCA can *not* be used against blatantly infringing sites like what.cd, waffles or Demonoid.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

              You are either lying or ignorant because not even SOPA can be used against CD, Waffles or Demonoid, they are in other countries that don't use American courts or American law for that they have their own courts, judges and law.

              SOPA can only be used against property inside the US and that is it, who is inside the US?

              All the tech giants that have business overseas.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

                You have lost your mind.

                SOPA is only about foreign websites. It was drafted specifically for sites such as what.cd, Waffles and Demonoid.

                I have no idea how you could be this misinformed.

                oh wait, yes I do.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

                  SOPA is not about foreign websites because it can't be, the US has zero authority to do that.

                  What the American government will do?
                  Send troops to invade the country to shutdown a website?
                  To force others you either have some leverage or you use force, since America is losing the economic leverage that leaves only force to be used and I don't think the American government is willing to start a war to defend American IP laws in foreign lands.

                  So that leaves the question how it plans to target those websites?

                  Attacking American business that supposedly do business with them, because American law can't be enforced overseas it can't do nothing about a foreign website, what it can do is try to close the doors inside America is like closing the windows to try and keep bad people out without going after them and bring them to justice, how is that helpfull?

                  You don't deal with the problem and in fact you end up limiting yourself, in fact you lost if you need to do that, the other won already, they command the places you can be and force you to stay inside at all times.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:45pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

                  Is about foreign websites?
                  Please explain how SOPA will target them, I dare you explain how they will be affected by American law in other countries.

                  They won't, what that law does is target American business to try and target them by proxy in the hopes that "rogue websites" will be affected.

                  Oh that is smart shoot at your own feet hoping it will hurt the other guy.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

              You are so stupid that you think SOPA do something.
              American law doesn't extend beyond American borders because you say so, other countries don't have American courts, so what is that you think SOPA will do to overseas websites that it will make them stop doing business?

              Block them in America? people just go around the blocks.
              Making American companies not do business with them? They don't care there are ways around that like proxy companies and institutions that receive the money and don't trace back to them. Is the American government going to reform LLC's and their entire financial system?
              Because that is what it would take to make American companies not work with any unlawful entity. Just take a look at how drug cartels funnel money through the American banks to theirs. But really, I wouldn't even bother American companies are not the only financial institutions in the world and there are alternative currencies in place already and they could become something else if idiots start trying to block global trade.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 6:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

          On a second thought the DMCA is used to censor others.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 6:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

          He's not. And why are you being dishonest by making up entire paragraphs of stuff you know are not true?

          I even Googled "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" and youtubed it, with and without quotes, and nothing relevant appears. I even went to David's BI and Google+ account

          https://plus.google.com/104621204832216628958/posts

          http://www.businessinsider.com/aut hor/david-seaman

          and spent some time reading many of the info and postings there and clicking through stuff and absolutely nothing you say checks out.

          So either your post is satire or you are so delusional that you actually believe someone might believe your lies. The later doesn't make IP extremists look good.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 9:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: If you want the truth:

          thanks i never heard of two of those sites

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:15pm

        Re: Re: If you want the truth:

        Gelf, not troll.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      kramer, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 7:44pm

      Re: If you want the truth:

      I'm familiar with a few of Sam's infrequent posts on that small community oriented website.

      The thing to keep in mind about Sam is that heís extraordinarily opinionated, often thinks heís made a convincing case when he hasnít, and seems to only consider people to be telling the "truth" when they agree with his point of view (no matter what evidence is offered to the contrary).

      And I donít loathe those kind of people, theyíre certainly entitled to be that way if they choose, just thought Iíd put his comments in perspective.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2012 @ 9:01pm

    It's downright slimy for NBCUniversal employees to threaten people to contact their employers because NBCUniversal doesn't agree with their statements online.

    is it as slimy as as web hosting services refusing to continue to Creative America because of its political position?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sam Gelfand, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 12:08am

    A Troll?

    No, I'm not a troll. Unless trolls use factual information to target people who continually lie on the internet to gain an audience, and if that's what I troll is, then I may be a troll. Somebody said I don't make convincing arguments, and I think that may be true, because my arguments are usually long-winded and complex, and such arguments are rarely convincing (ask John Kerry if you don't believe that to be true).

    I admire David in some respects, because he is tenacious unrelenting, which often lead to results. But I don't think that his positive qualities make up for his negative qualities -- exaggerating, sensationalizing, and misrepresenting issues to favor his argument. If I didn't have and admiration for him, I would not be so enthusiastic about hounding him. But if he were an honest journalist, I wouldn't hound him at all.

    Something to consider, David: My father and grandfather combined have over 60 years of experience in journalism, and that ranges from sports to ethics to reader's representative in a major newspaper. I may not personally have the credentials to tell you what a hack you are, but I was raised to firmly reject sensationalism and self-centered, phony journalism, and you really take the cake when it comes to self-centered phony sensationalistic journalism.

    There's hope for you yet, but you've got to stop blaming everybody else for you failures.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), Jan 17th, 2012 @ 9:14am

      Re: A Troll?

      I may not personally have the credentials to tell you what a hack you are, but I was raised to firmly reject sensationalism and self-centered, phony journalism, and you really take the cake when it comes to self-centered phony sensationalistic journalism.
      So you don't watch NBC news or its affiliates then, right?The only thing worse than sensationalist journalism is journalism that ignores the truth, which can be done very easily by twisting facts. Something trolls excel at.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 4:14am

    So anyone who questions their actions gets their accounts revoked and their life ruined? When did NBC become the mafia?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 7:44am

    this to me is typical entertainment industry mentality. they dont like what someone says or does, spit out the dummy and go running to someone else to do the dirty work! what a complete bunch of gutless wankers!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 9:05am

    If someone's perspective is so skewed that they believe that SOPA and PIPA are the most important issues facing this country I question their judgement as a journalist. I have seen comment's like David's in the past, a typical bait and switch, "Hey great article, but you aren't talking about my issue, blah blah blah...". These types of comments are really prolific on sites like Yahoo and usually involve redirecting users to a dating service. I applaud NBC Universal for attempting to moderate their comments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Jan 17th, 2012 @ 11:44am

      Re:

      If someone's perspective is so skewed that they believe that SOPA and PIPA are the most important issues facing this country I question their judgement as a journalist.

      He said SOPA and NDAA. I'm not sure you can really argue SOPA is top 2, but when it's now the law of the land that the military can arrest a US citizen inside the US and imprison them indefinitely without pressing charges or holding a trial, it's hard to think of anything going on now that's more important than that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    "It's pretty difficult to see how that's spam"

    lolwut?

    Someone posts a link to their website on every article you post and it's difficult to see how that's spam?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ltlw0lf (profile), Jan 17th, 2012 @ 2:25pm

      Re:

      Someone posts a link to their website on every article you post and it's difficult to see how that's spam?

      Cool, no more Glynn Moody articles on Techdirt...as they are all spam.

      Just because someone includes a link back to their website doesn't make their speech unsolicited commercial speech, nor does it make their comments any less protected.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    joe g, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 11:14am

    boycott corporate propaganda

    These big corporations are not trustworthy sources of information and never were. They lie continuously, often through omission as that is the easiest for them. What we need to do is discourage the bobbing head masses from trusting these disingenuous lie factories at all. Turn off the Big Lies and do some work to find out the truth. If you want to lay back and be fed sound bites about the world from spray tan big haired ghouls you deserve to be an ignoramus whose opinions are essentially worthless.

    As to the commenter who was fired -- sue the MFs. Make them pay a price.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DH's Love Child (profile), Jan 17th, 2012 @ 3:13pm

    I think the bigger question

    is why would any contributer to BI continue that relationship knowing that BI isn't going to back them up?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sam, Jan 17th, 2012 @ 4:51pm

    Oops, he did it again!

    Wanted to alert you to an update of this story: "David was never 'dismissed' as a contributor. He also wasn't 're-accepted,'"
    -Business Insider's CEO

    Apparently, David lied about what happened. He just plainly lied to portray himself as the victim when all he's doing is running around demanding attention and being dishonest about everything he writes about. Why is anybody behind this guy? He's the worst possible representative for the cause of individual freedom, because everything he does is self-centered and dishonest.

    "Following this, Quintano told David that he had contacted Business Insider to complain about David's statements."

    I no longer believe this at all. I realize that there's a screen shot of Quintano saying he would contact Business Insider, but nothing indicates this actually happened.

    But none of that matters, because David was lying about being "let go." He is on horrible journalist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2012 @ 5:28am

      Re: Oops, he did it again!

      If you are on a period to period revolving contract that is not picked up you are essentially fired. It is just semantics.

      Oh are you an anti-semantic as well?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sam, Jan 18th, 2012 @ 8:37am

    A period to period what?

    What are you talking about a "period to period revolving contract." He wasn't on any contract. He wasn't a paid employee then and he's not a paid employee now. All he's ever done is submitted articles as a contributor. He said that Business Insider "let him go" and would not accept his articles any more, but the CEO said that's not true, he was never let go. I'm not arguing semantics. It's a very clear instance of a lie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jefg, Jan 18th, 2012 @ 8:44am

      Re: A period to period what?

      The email where they fired him is posted above, why is it that you are the one lying? Is that all the msn can do now?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jeff, Jan 18th, 2012 @ 8:40am

    Par for the course, the msm predating on its customers and refusing to report on the fact they are sending us all down the river by seeking to destroy the internet. They are also entirely corrupted and fail to report on crimes and frauds it determines are perpitrated by the rich and powerfull upon the middle class. These massive media empires are shills for a corrupt establishment that is now in,the process of looting the middle class with impunity. They will not be happy with just stealing this one man's job for merely discusing sopa, they are destroying us all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sam Gelfand, Jan 18th, 2012 @ 3:32pm

    why do i waste my time?

    I just forgot that i absolutely had to respond to this comment from somebody accusing me of lying about Seaman's youtube video titles: "I even Googled "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber" and youtubed it, with and without quotes, and nothing relevant appears."

    That's probably true, because he changed the name of the video, after (but surely not because) I criticized him for it. By the way, does your name happen to be... oh, I don't know... David? Just kidding I know there's only a 40% chance that's true.

    Here is the video that used to be called "Lady Gaga punched Justin Bieber.... NDAA'd hard" or something very very close to that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJYnXxB0gNM&context=C30d9c7fADOEgsToPDskLkSKmjFcdiEdqHQkRmxxTg

    As you can see, the video starts with a picture of Lady Gaga for no apparent reason. And just to further prove my obviously true assertion, here's one of the first comments to the video: "I was hoping to see beibers nose bleeding, But anyways good job kepp (sic) getting the word out and Vote Ron Paul !!" Or the comment left two above that: "clever, everyone wants to see bieber get owned" -kj444 (4 days ago)

    I have many negative qualities, but dishonesty is not among them

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This