|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 23, 2014 6:41:10 GMT
Re the situation with a failed company and a thread that's been closed down, once again thoughts on libel...
Journalism is my day job and I've been horrified at some of the potential libels early on in this board, there was board discussion about libel and the mods got heavy and a balance was struck.
However with a failed company there is a direct need to discuss the matter and fwiw these are the libel issues as i see them..
1/ For there to be an actionable libel there has to be loss/damage. My fear early on was that comments on the board might cause a loan to not fill and/or cause a firm to go bust. There would then be an obvious loss and receivers could go after anyone that conceivable knocked business confidence in a firm - eg comments on this board. When a firm has gone down that 'big one' is obviously no longer relevant. A similar argument applies to directors that jump ship. It would be fair and reasonable to discuss them.
2/ A defence to libel is 'fair comment' that is 'timely' eg when reacting to a developing situation it is fair and reasonable to say things that might be considered vexatious if said a long time after the event, that'd be seen as dredging up things from the past for no good reason. If a company is going down in real time, it is fair and reasonable for a board like this to discuss it in a responsible way.
3/ The dangers of jigsaw identification are real but I think there's been some mission creep from "not directly identifying" a borrower to not saying any phrase that may come up on a google search of that company.
If this board is to serve it's purpose it has to be able to discuss failed loans so I would urge that the mods switch their emphasis from trying to prevent identification to 'not directly naming' and very strict modding of any direct or indirect comments that a company or individuals acted dishonestly eg getting a loan with the intention of doing a runner
just my thoughts!
Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by jevans4949 on Jun 23, 2014 12:05:14 GMT
It is fundamental to the nature of this board that participants will be saying "I don't like the look of this loan because ..."
Also, where a loan does go wrong, people will want a post-mortem.
In my opinion, it is a bit hard to understand why links to presumably reliable newspaper reports about companies which are unambiguously identifiable should not be allowed.
Also, if there is information in the public domain (e.g. Companies House data showing that Mr X is no longer a director of Company Y, or annual accounts data), then it should be possible to pass that on.
In the case of individuals, it would probably be better to ask (by private email) the (P2P) company proposing a loan to Mr Z: "Is this the same Mr Z who had a conviction for fraud reported in a newspaper last year?". (NOTE: this is a general point, NOT applying to the thread we have in mind).
Mods should be able to suspend a thread if something which is posted appears untrue, and they should be able to ask the relevant P2P company (and through them the client) for a comment on it. One would hope that the P2P company would be able to provide some sort of public rebuttal, in which case the mods might be entitled to remove the original allegation.
Mods should probably immediately remove anything relating to racial or sexual stereotyping (except possibly by the poster deprecating themselves), although light-hearted puns on the nature of the business probably do no harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by jevans4949 on Jun 23, 2014 12:30:13 GMT
A further aspect that may come up with some businesses could be blogs with comments about poor customer service or poorly performing products. (EDIT: I found such comments around about the predecessor company to the one under discussion.)
Probably in this case the best thing would be for the business in question to post some reply explaining how they have been dealing with the situation, and/or explaining that this is one nutter amongst a million satisfied customers.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,189 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Jun 23, 2014 15:15:16 GMT
I agree that prima facie the mods have been over-zealous in the case of the thread just closed. I can see nothing wrong with naming the borrower in these circumstances, or with references to factual newspaper reports or to other facts in the public domain.
However, a risk to the platform may arise if those factual disclosures are mixed in the same thread with other more questionable posts. It's a difficult balance, but I think they have been too cautious here.
Edit: Given the title of this thread, I should add that we do not yet know whether or not the company in question has failed. There could be an innocent explanation for the reported actions. I expect we will find out soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Jun 23, 2014 15:28:57 GMT
Two names: Newsnight and Lord McAlpine. Then look at the consequences for people who thought there was prima facie evidence and for their tweets then suddenly found big holes and their bank balances. Just because something comes from a reputable news source does not make it factual.
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Jun 23, 2014 16:41:04 GMT
Much in the same way that you have to be registered and logged into whatever site you are on to have the ability to view sensitive information, be it AC, FC, SS, etc., there is the availability to make certain areas of this forum private and available to registered members only. With a private "members only" area we'd be able to be more open and have the option to say far more than would be sensible on a publicly accessible area.
Perhaps that's a possible way ahead?
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Jun 23, 2014 17:52:57 GMT
This isn't necessarily just about libel, remember that the fact that a company has a loan with a P2B platform is not usually public domain knowledge. Revealing this information may well annoy the borrower and the platform, and deter other companies from applying for a P2B loan. With one notable exception, the majority of P2P and P2B platforms interact with this forum and we rely on their goodwill to continue to do this. If nothing else, revealing confidential information almost certainly breaches the user agreements of the platforms and risks getting banned from them.
Plus the policy of ****ing out provides a fantastic opportunity for humourous creative asterisking (Might I suggest F***ing F***ed Ltd as the name of the current company)
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Jun 23, 2014 18:06:18 GMT
remember that the fact that a company has a loan with a P2B platform is not usually public domain knowledge. I would explain to you why that is not correct. In at least two ways. However, last time I did, my entire posting was zealously moderated and the thread locked, even though I used a goodly number of asterisks. Same to baz657 over your comment "Much in the same way that you have to be registered and logged into whatever site you are on to have the ability to view sensitive information, be it AC ...": No you don't. Again, I'm sure you'll understand why I am not able to comment further.
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Jun 23, 2014 18:53:39 GMT
I would explain to you why that is not correct. In at least two ways. Can you do it in a general way without mentioning any particular loan or platform? I'm genuinely interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Jun 23, 2014 20:23:39 GMT
I would explain to you why that is not correct. In at least two ways. Can you do it in a general way without mentioning any particular loan or platform? I'm genuinely interested. In this particular instance everything is in the public domain - except in this forum. Reviewing the lender's site without logging in reveals the borrowers name (it is even nicely highlighted with a warning) and the fact that they took a loan or if you know the borrowers name the loan details are available from a web search using suitable terms. From there combining various names and terms web searches reveals everything you need to know similarly searches of companies house and the free access parts of company checking services.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jun 24, 2014 6:09:29 GMT
Morning all, am up to my ears in things and have only skim read the first post, which sounds a sensible way forward. Thanks for that jackpease. Between the mods we'll come up with a nice succinct way of saying that so we can add it to the Rules. For now I'll unlock the other thread so discussion can continue. |
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jun 24, 2014 6:26:10 GMT
I would explain to you why that is not correct. In at least two ways. Can you do it in a general way without mentioning any particular loan or platform? I'm genuinely interested. There's no need to - I've put the post back, however I would say two things: the mods are volunteers who are doing this for "fun" without any access to legal teams so I think we should be excused for being a little over cautious at times. I think history proves that we are happy to listen to all sides and make sensible decisions. The world is real time and fast moving - sometimes we need to put the brake on while we discuss the best way forward. Secondly if a thread/post has been locked/removed then anyone who tries to prise out details about it I think is living very dangerously and likely to get themselves banned. We've also demonstrated that there are lines we are not happy to cross and will take decisive action if people do cross them. I realise that's an overreaction to your post markr, but it seemed like a good time to make the general point.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Jun 24, 2014 8:31:13 GMT
Can you do it in a general way without mentioning any particular loan or platform? I'm genuinely interested. No ... But you can read the original collection of asterisks as the post has been re-instated 
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Jun 24, 2014 9:07:47 GMT
No ... But you can read the original collection of asterisks as the post has been re-instated Thanks. I'm quite surprised at how much information is available on the AC website without logging in. If I were applying for a loan I'd be very wary about what information I was revealing to my customers, suppliers and competitors. But I think the forum rules need to be based on the most secretive platform, which is probably FC.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Jun 24, 2014 11:54:10 GMT
My own view is that it is perhaps better to be over cautious at the start when the facts are still unclear, as once the information goes public (indexed and cached by search engines) it is a lot harder to backtrack.
The mods are doing a fantastic job trying to balance everything, without themselves knowing the finer legal details - which I myself don't know!
|
|
