bobsweep wrote:This appears to be an unfair attack against bObsweep. We have no idea what company runs robotreviews.com and since we are unable to find a single phone number, address, email address or company name on this website, we have no choice but to address this message to the username "chief robot" which seems to be the nickname of the person in charge of the website.
Let me help you with that. My name is Craig Capizzi, and I am the 'Chief Robot'. If you would like to contact me there is a little button right under my name on the left that allows anyone to contact me via private message or via e-mail if they choose to.
bobsweep wrote:Firstly, the question that immediately comes to mind is which corporation(s) this huge website is affiliated with to pay for the maintenance of its 60,000 pages (Google's count); surely not bObsweep. Is a website that has 30 times more pages than indigo.com and is half the size of apple.com just running through philanthropic motivations?
Sorry, I hate to break it to you, but we are not owned by any 'huge' corporations. We are just a user community which allows anyone and everyone to post their thoughts and opinions on any and all robotic products that they wish to. We have 60,000 pages because we have been around for a very long time, and we have thousands of users who have posted their thoughts and opinions on this site.
bobsweep wrote:Secondly, it is not very usual for someone to write a review about how bad a "broken product" functions, analyzing the product in depth and even comparing it to competing brands, while at the same time claiming that the broken product does not even run for 10 seconds before stopping in error. It is hard to believe that an unbiased person writes a detailed comparison of bObsweep with other products, based on the few seconds that she can “get the broken bObsweep to work” (paraphrase). If anyone receives a broken product in the mail, the natural complain would usually be about any hardship from the company regarding replacing/returning it, not an attempt to compare the functionality of the broken product with other brands.
Everyone reviews a product differently. It is not our place to judge how anyone reviews a product, whether good or bad. We are a public forum and anyone is allowed to post their opinions here.
bobsweep wrote:Thirdly, what company or entity is responsible for the claims made on this website and on what basis are their veracity judged? If no one claims responsibility for the veracity and impartiality of the claims, we hereby request that no comment be allowed on this website about any of our products and services, since we suspect that this website is run by entities that are biased against us.
Please immediately remove and also disallow in the future any content related to our company and our product as we neither wish to be represented by this website nor do we consent to our products being reviewed in it.
You seem to have no concept of the law and how it applies to internet forums. This is a public user community. We do not verify the reviews made by our users, nor are we legally obligated to do so in any capacity. If you disagree with a user review, then you are free to respond to it, and you are also free to post why you believe the review is incorrect.
As we are an American website, RobotReviews.com is fully protected under the rights authorized under Title 47 USC §230(c)(1) which states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
The basic summary of protections offered by Section 230 of the CDA are:Section 230 grants interactive online services of all types, including news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from certain types of legal liability stemming from content created by others.
This immunity covers defamation and privacy claims, as well as negligence and other tort claims associated with publication. You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not materially alter the meaning of the original content.
As a user generated consumer review site, as a rule we do not remove any content that appears to be valid consumer opinions without proof that the information is invalid. If there is reasonable proof that the information is invalid, we will remove it. Masih, Inc. has no grounds to ask that negative third party review information be removed from our site, and it would be wrong for us to do so.
Reference Articles for further review:http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/leg ... ection_230http://m.paidcontent.org/article/419-th ... -and-yelp/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_23 ... ecency_Act
If you plan on selling a product of any kind, your product will invariably be reviewed on hundreds of websites. I suggest that you prepare yourself for that inevitability, because the beauty of the internet is that everyone is allowed to freely express their thoughts and opinions about whatever they would like, and we have absolutely no intention of censoring our users rights to do so here.