Ripoff Report - A Virus of Mechanized Defamation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2024
- Thanks to MANSCAPED for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping with my promo code "UPPER" at manscaped.com/...
Ripoff Report, in its apparent quest to be a paragon of internet consumer advocacy, has become a cesspool of mechanized, and MONETIZED defamation on a massive scale.
The website now selectively edits, and leverages the most vindictive, falsified, and erroneous claims to extract money from victims who are forced to pay, or see their businesses, reputations, and future irreparably damaged.
PATREON: / ueg
RYDER RIPPS: / ryder_ripps
ODYSEE INVITE: odysee.com/$/i...
LOCALS: upperechelon.l...
upperechelon.l...
Axial GT's Channel: / axialgamingtech Thank You. Subscribe to him please!
⦁ MERCH: teespring.com/...
⦁ UPPER ECHELON WEBSITE: upperechelon.gg
⦁ UPPER ECHELON CUSTOM MERCH STORE: agentink.gg/co...
⦁ DISCORD SERVER: / discord
⦁ Giraffe Video: • Giraffe running in her...
⦁ Video Transitions: William Eklof
⦁ Outtro Song: • Hot Heat - Topher Mohr... MY
BUSINESS EMAIL: upperechelongamers@yahoo.com
#Report #Ripoff #Ripoffreport
Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping with my promo code "UPPER" at manscaped.com/Upper
so put some thing about Antifa on his sight and sit back and wait for Antifa go after him !!! see if he doesn't make a change or get a beat down better yet BLM ALSO !!! and watch the sparks fly lol use bad to fight bad LOL !!!
For a second I got scared that Werner from crowd1 threatened you to take down the videos when I heard that last bit.
Hey mate do you have a patreon set up by chance?
Bought my manscaped with your code for fathers day lol just got here today. My balls thank you lol. Just one more thing you help with. Much love bro.
Let us all go there an leave "reviews" and "things the owner has allegedly done" on his website . Doesn't that mean they at least until he notices will pop up on Google?
Blackmail is illegal.
Remember the website posting Mugshots and then charging thousands of dollars to these people to remove their arrest photos?
The owners of that website got mugshots of their very own.
They ask for payment to investigate, not payment to remove. So legally its not blackmail.
There used to be a morality inherent to our markets... now that making a decent honest living is so difficult, people are resorting to dishonest means. The whole 'keeping up with the joneses' reflex is now on steroids due to social media making you think everyone's life is better than yours.
@@freddieoblivion6122 blackmail is generally defined in law as using the threat of turning someone in for a felony they've committed to make them take actions.
@@toby1248 It is however legally extortion.
@@65firered The 'x' makes it sound cool.
Also more technically accurate.
Even the site name is clearly a joke. This guy is running a blackmail ring and openly mocks the law for not being able to reach him. It's insane.
Maybe this pathetic attempt of a website is part of the Sour Bored Ape Club
i think it is more extortion than blackmail.
"why's this owner got one of them funny last names?"
@@Ultrox007 you mean he is a member of the SHT?
@@Francois_Dupont the lost tribe if you prefer.
I wonder if you can file a Ripoff Report on Ripoff Reports
I used the stones to destroy the stones
@@slavsquatsuperstar best response I’ve read today. Nice!
@@slavsquatsuperstar you have returned to monke.
Maybe. But obviously, if it's about themselves they are just gonna delete it.
I was thinking the same thing and wondering how fast it would be removed lol
1. Remember blackmail and extortion are illegal...
2. Many countries have various crime report systems in place...
3. Ripoff reporter is already illegal in Italy...
4. It could be in more countries...
I would like there to be more countries that make it illegal. But when there is this much money changing hands you know there are going to be corrupt politicians involved who will stomp any legislation down hard.
Considering "Italy has consistently been regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the Eurozone" getting declared illegal there doesn't amount to much.
Yeah, Section 230 is a serious problem in the U.S. It was written in the early days of the internet by old men who didn't know that the internet wasn't a series of tubes. It needs to be rewritten, but Congress won't bother because the people who benefit most from it are the big corporations, and the politicians are in their pockets.
Many European nations atleast have laws against harming a businesses reputation based on false claims. Problem is of course that you do need to sue and that could take time while the defamation stays highly visible.
@@EvitoCruor The US has such laws as well. Never mind Section 230 has an EU equivalent - the E-Commerce Directive
Huh, extortion, that's illegal. They certainly found themselves a lucrative legal loophole.
Until someone show up on their door step with nothing too lose
@@_Hal9000 Sadly, people like based Killdozer are one in a million or rarer.
@@MoreEvilThanYahweh exactly. Kazakhstan revolted over 5 dollar a gal gas. We are a bunch of poseys. We could all live like the elite. Just have to take it.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I feel like the person who filled that rip-off report about you got exactly what they wanted from this surgical dissection of the website
It’s actually pretty smart. Maybe they were trying to get UEG to cover it because they were harmed in some way by the website and want to expose it
Yeah, no. That’s how a psycho and not a fan behaves.
@@MundaneThingsBackwards I think the "UEGRULES" thing shows that they like UEG.
@@Bacteriophagebs No, it shows that they're trolling. A negative false report in the eyes of 99.99% of the people who stumble on the site and don't pick up on the is still a negative report. Hey, bro, let me smear feces on your doorstep but have it spell out [insert your name] is pretty cool. Big fan. 😉
@@MundaneThingsBackwards Anyone who believes rip off report shouldn’t/wouldn’t be watching UEG anyways. It’s harmless
You keep finding all these scams, rippoffs and shady business practices mate, great work. I know when you put out a video it's going to be top quality
I can see a joint lawsuit from affected businesses in the future, claiming that by refusing to verify the user statements, they have effectively allowed the statement to be their own.
The interesting question about this is how they're allowed to exist like this. This is outright extortion and blackmail which protections don't cover.
Becuase they have good enough lawyers apparently. Given how many times they have been sued.
The problem is Section 230, which gives online "platforms" either too much freedom or too much protection. They can let speech they approve stay up, even if defaming or otherwise illegal, while censoring speech they dislike, and they are shielded from liability both ways.
We see this every day with Twitter, UA-cam, Facebook, and Twitch. They let things like scams and calls for violence stay up if it agrees with their politics, but label things that disagree with them as scams and violence, even when they aren't.
@@Bacteriophagebs The thing is. While I don't like section 230 being used like this. If you got rid of it. Sites like Facebook and Twitter would panic ban people just to avoid legal issues. The issue would likely get worse. It has its uses right now. It's why I get confused when people are wanting to get rid of Section 230 for free speech issues.
@@Koh9034 panic banning and obvious censorship would show people that these media platforms are not non-biased as they claim, and would then allow criticism and scrutiny to be levied at their actions/articles. They're companies/corporations with profit in mind/other agendas, and the protections of freedom should not shield unscrupulous activities. It should not be gray. There are too many things gray and this isn't one of them.
@@Koh9034 Section 230 doesn't need to go away, it needs to be rewritten. Either platforms need to allow all non-illegal speech, or they need to be held to their own TOS rather than only enforcing it when they feel like it, usually against political opinions they disagree with. Not evenly enforcing their TOS is, in practice, editorializing, which should make them a publisher, not a platform.
Would be a shame if someone managed to enter their domain, yeet the backup server and off site repositories, get all internal communication and then burn all the servers to the ground.
I mean, that would be really, really sad, I certainly hope something like that isn’t going to happen to such a well spirited and great company that certainly isn’t using loopholes to keep their illegal activities legal.
As soon as RR is gone, someone else will just fill that hole and make millions from it. The only way to fight this is by petitioning the lawmaker to address it.
So I heard "CAP" and my first thought was: "Combat Air Patrol service? Didn't know shady websites operated aircraft carriers?"
no CAP, I thought that too
Im surprised these guys haven't been compromised. Given their patterns, it doesn't seem like it would actually be all that hard. I bet their emails would be a riot to read.
The only way I see to get around their Section 230 protection is to get them to alter a report that defames someone.
For example, if enough people started accusing Google executives of heinous crimes, eventually the site might alter the names to that of a real person, opening them to a lawsuit. If they change the name, they've edited the post and are now a publisher, not a platform, and therefore liable.
Sadly, the easy way around this is to use the "redacted" tactic that they seem to have figured out already.
@@Bacteriophagebs not the sort of compromising to which I was referring. Im talking about the malicious intrusion kind.
There's somewhere out there... *THIS IS NOT A CALL TO COMMIT CRIME(S)*
However, do the moral thing.
How have they not been sued for exortion?
Not targeting important enough people who'd actually have the time and care to further sue the "report".
I also imagine as soon they see a cease and desist in their mail, the report is immediately taken down
Ripoff reporter is illegal in Italy...and when he found out he was being investigated by them, suddenly alot of the reports were deleted, which Ed Magedson natually denied...
I'm sure they can weasel their way out of that most of the time but my question is that why don't companies deal with them like they deal with other safe harbor protected sites like UA-cam: just demand them to take things down. That usually works with YT because denying that request risks them losing that protection and makes them accountable for the words published
Section 230. As a "platform," they have the right to censor what they like, but are not liable for anything someone else puts on their platform. Just like Twitter, Facebook, UA-cam, and Twitch.
EDIT: Case in point, I posted a comment about how you don't get RR results on a certain search engine involving waterfowl and Google-owned YT deleted it instantly.
@@dwavenminer Oh so this site IS illegal in some countries in the EU.
No wonder I never stumbled on it.
“You pay us to help you get rid the problem we caused.”
I forget, what’s the definition for “racketeering”?
🎩
🐍 no step on Snek! 🇺🇸🇭🇰
Was gonna say this is only 2 steps away from the mob during protection shakedowns. "Oh no, someone broke into your business? Shame, you know we have a very effective Security Service design to completely eliminate those pesky "Incidents" for a low low fee of thousands. Let us know by next week Frank"
Literally the same thing.
@@lacker101 At least the Mob will actually take care of other criminals so long as you pay their extortion fee. Ripoff Report provides *no* benefits to society.
I worked in a corporation as a IT admin given me access to board and other behind closed door meetings. I distinctly remember this website being used as a weapon towards other businesses that were in direct competition and the crazy part is this was 10-15 years ago.
SEO poisoning is still a valid tool to preform cyber attacks
Like, your company would file reports in order to defame competitors?
It’s not mere defamation. That site’s business model is extortion plain and simple
“ohh you don’t like what some unverifiable anonymous user wrote about you? Sure would be a shame if your internet searched results showed this… oh up” that’s essentially this site’s business model.
The only reason I reckon they have been able to stay up is because nobody has bothered to take them to task, demonstrate damages and sue them for defamation. That opening statement of “you probably deserve it” can clearly be interpreted as malice
Dear twitter mob, don't forget not to cancel these guys. Random teens are way better targets for your ire.
Fuck cancel culture. Sue Ripoff report instead
Why would they? Twitter is most likely the place that weaponizes this site the most
OMG - I was actually targeted by these people years ago. Its a long story but they are extortionists and aid extortion. I just started watching the video but I hope he addresses this. I swear to God, thank you for making a video on this man!
EDIT: @10:25 - yes! Exactly
Why aren't they already hacked? No one can be let to become this annoying and not get attacked. Give them a taste of their own medicine.
lol yeah, but they just said that as an excuse for removing negative (truthful) comments and reports about him on his own websites so he can keep tooting his own horn about how he is a "free speech advocate" and "doesn't delete negative comments (about himself)" lol. It's the typical "I was hacked bro" excuse 🤣.
Wow he looked exactly how I imagined him.
Yup.
This is insane.
Having the ability to remove their reports by paying them money invalidates the purpose of their _entire_ site.
Why has no one shut this site down yet?
'merica FUCK YEA
The Lerner thing is interesting, would love to hear more.
My father, 15 years ago used to had a position in goverment, not very high, but enough to be known by a lot of people. On a local level, he told me it was VERY common to have reporters make "interviews" to local and state government officials for a local newspaper. What the article would say, was heavily dependent of the ammount of money you "donate" to the interviewer. If you decided not to donate, they will put up a hit piece against you.
This practice has evolved into the digital form, which is even easier. So, I am not suprised at all.
The way the owner acts I am frankly amazed he has not been physically attacked. This type of blackmailing is the sort of stuff that results in broken teeth at best and a lost limb or life at worst.
I'm honestly surprised it took them that long to turn this into a protection racket/blackmail sort of thing. I mean, search engine optimization is the god of the internet.
Granted it's in its own little pantheon along with Algorithms and (for some reason) 4chan giving legacy media ideas, but still...
Search and discovery phase in the legal system is something to look forward to with these kind of cases, it revealed so much during the Depp v Heard trial and with so much coverage from independent lawyers in the internet giving analysis, it's becoming a whole new layer for citizens to watch out for.
77 lawsuits and they won them all
the ADL works in much the same manner, but won't allow the option of extortion.
They just label anyone and anything they don't like to be a hate symbol.
The ADL was literally originally founded to defend a Jewish guy who molested and murdered a little girl and then tried to frame a black guy for it.
I wonder what would happen if some lawmakers were defamed on the site. Maybe some lawyers, judges, senators, etc. Maybe that'd actually see some court results.
That might actually work, but probably not.
Section 230 protects RR. If enough members of Congress got put on the site, Congress _might_ be motivated to revisit Section 230 when they realized they couldn't actually sue the site successfully.
The problem is that it would need to be enough reports that RR couldn't delete them quickly, about enough Congressmen to get them seriously interested, and the site could easily set up a system to automatically delete or alter anything using targeted politicians' names.
So get 4chan on it then.
@@andrewrobb3258 *YES.*
man, i didn't even know this website existed, thanks for bringing it to attention!
Commenting for the algorithm
I'm gonna make a few reports on Amber Heard, Erza Miller, Taylor Lorenz, and anyone else I don't like!
Blackmail is the word of the day.
Sounds to me like Google executives are head hunting other Google executives in the chat rooms that they most often visit... They just want there to be a sense of community in the office where they all share the same hobby!
this would not surprise me one bit
I love your channel!
Ripoff Report should just change it's name to "Ripoff", to put it charitably.
That's one edit I would pay for. Maybe not, but it'd be funny.
More like "Legal Extortion Racket"
Ripoff Report and Magedson seem like the perfect (and justified) target for a sustained DDOS and a hacking campaign from those 'Anon' fellows.
Or nice visit from Agent 47
lol youre 15 years too late
any group claiming to be anonymous is a bunch of know nothing script kiddies
at this point hacking is basically only a nuissance. phone numbers and adresses are required.
Sounds like Twitter with extra steps
Who else has never heard of this goof website?
so extortion is illegal, but because he doesn't technically even offer the option of removing the defaming reports, thus making it WORSE than extortion, it's not exactly extortion and is thus legal. Genius. It's like selling a 2000 dollar blackmail lootbox.
This sounds like a great video to forward to the FBI as a tip towards what is possibly criminal activity
They’re busy arresting grandmas for trespassing lol
oh I can guarantee this falls under criminal behavior....
make a comment about someone the charge em money to maybe you'll change it?? that's blackmail/racketeering if I ever heard of a blatant case.....lolz
if i was the federal we'd rather look at terrorists than chase criminals now agency AKA the FBI I'd be constructing a RICO case against the site and be pressuring the FCC FTC or whatever to drop em from all protections they have then pounce once the protections come down.....raid their offices, slap cuffs on everyone and take all their data, shut down the site then analyze what was taken and build the case against the company, they'd be cooked in a year.....
it's too bad we live in a world where justice is bent and broken.....
@@RR-sz8wl link me that story.
The thing about Jeff Lerner surprised me, and now I'd be curious what the summary of the exchanges was that lead to the removal of the videos.
Because you removing your videos is definitely not something that happens often.
Apparently Jeff was a victim of this site
You'd think there would be some kind of legal action you could take against them. The fact that you can pay to have a report "changed" shows they are not hands off with the site and it's kind of blackmail.
The fact he speaks in third person really says it all. Lol.
If there was a way to combat this, I'd suggest gathering up everyone who suffered personal damages because of the site and together, sue Ed for slanderous extortion.
So having not finished the video yet there are two things that I want to say. One is this is literally blackmail this website is participating in. And two if you are featured on this website and the information is demonstrably untrue why not sue them into the ground?
*Edit* There is no f-ing way these people are protected by 230. Nah.
I don't think it's blackmail. Blackmail suggests that the victim has something to hide, usually something illegal.
This is far worse. They're actively doing damage through slander and then demanding money to stop or reverse the effects, effectively holding the names and reputations of vulnerable people and business to ransom.
That's extortion. It's an underhanded assault that doesn't even require guilt on the part of the intended victim.
It's not "literally" blackmail. If it were, the lawsuits would have worked. And they are absolutely protected by 230, or the lawsuits would have worked. The courts have ruled this way 70+ times. Did you even watch the video?
Section 230 is a cancer.
@@Bacteriophagebs section 230 isn't cancer it's a legal precedent that can be changed based on the understanding of it. Unfortunately most judges have gone on the side of companies rather than people. Because 2:30 makes a very specific difference between a publisher and a platform. It's just that no one wants to adhere to that difference so the lock can't technically be enforced the way it is now not unless a judge sets a precedent for it to be put to that standard.
And yes it is quite literally blackmail because regardless of whether it is in a full proper legal sense or not. Blackmail is using something that could potentially be harmful to you and leveraging it against you for gain. So if somebody makes up a false claim which apparently they can do with out any evidence or otherwise. And then the person who puts it up can't even take it down or change it. And the site then holds that information hostage regardless of whether it's true or false, and for a fee no less. Then that is quite literally blackmail. A lot of the time the bigger issue isn't the fact of whether it is one thing or another thing. The issue comes down to if the ruling judges actually give a damn. If they do the law gets upheld. If they don't care they can perceive something as something else entirely and set an entirely new president for the sake of letting a company get off. And because of poor laws and legal precedent people and companies are interchangeable under the law. 230 can be enforced but a judge actually needs to enforce it.
@@GuardianDarkAngel Okay, you just don't know what "literally" means. Gotcha.
Section 230 is a cancer because it was poorly-worded. Like all badly-written laws, it forced the courts to make decisions based on a combination of the letter and the intent of the law, resulting in our current situation. Like a cancer, it started out intended as a good thing and mutated into something awful and will now take a incredible amount of effort to fix.
@@Bacteriophagebs Ok, let me make this pretty clear since it seems you don't understand. I'm more than aware of what literally means. And I'm also very familiar with what fundamentally means.
When I say it's literally blackmail it is literally blackmail. Could you argue if it's the legal definition? Certainly you could but that doesn't make you right. And short of several legal scholars saying otherwise, I know what I know. Now with the statement about 230 being cancer. It's really not. Is it perfect? By no means. But no law will be. However repealing it would do far more harm than making adjustments to it. Because on a FUNDAMENTAL level it's not a bad law. Like literally any law, it requires a judge to set a precedent for it. Or decide how to rule on it. Often it's the case where the same law can end up in different results. Though it's highly likely that these cases were held in locations that were NOT conducive to the people pressing charges. Further more the reason I say Section 230 should not protect them is because are you really a platform when you do not allow users to edit or delete what they themselves wrote? No. At that point you are a publisher. And publishers, like this company ARE liable for things they publish. THE ISSUE, is the fact that a judge needs to set a precedent as to the definable difference between a publisher and a platform. WHEN that actually happens 230 WILL be used the way it's intended to be used. Removing it without anything in it's place actually frees up the reigns on companies run far more rampant.
Why if his website has specifically targeted Google executives with slander they haven't "shadow banned" it from top Google searches? It would seem like the wizards of tech who think they should be in charge of determining "fake news" would take action against a website like that.
so the moral of the story is that anything on ripoff report should be completely disregarded.
How is this legal? They do not even do anything to verify the information that is posted but charge you to take it off their website? Again I ask, how is this legal?
Political donations. That's how.
Section 230. "Platforms" have no responsibility for things posted on their site by third parties, but they have the power to censor whatever they want. It's how Twitter, Facebook, UA-cam, and Twitch get away with what they do. It's badly written and needs to be revisited, but it won't be because Congress is lazy and the people benefiting most from it are the big corporations.
No prosecution, and not enough for a Civil lawsuit.
Even if this website were legit in terms of vetting its reviews, the fact you can just throw enough money to make bad reviews(again, assuming the website did even the bare minimum of vetting for slander) go away is incredibly unethical.
Frankly I'm surprised a certain 400 LB hacker hasn't already memed this website into oblivion.
There is a way to kinda help everyone already on the Ripoff Report. If we were able to create reports on thousands of various people and/or companies that are just clearly over the top, then everyone may just start to ignore any search engine results with Ripoff Report in the title.
It's just an idea, but especially with that girl who's been accused of spreading HIV, if that accusation is amongst a lot of BS, then it will be treated as so.
No I haven't thought about this a lot, so I'm sure there might be something blocking this idea, but surely fighting with instead of against might be a solution somehow?
I was thinking just writing hundreds of thousands of reports on ripoff reports own site. I mean maybe bot it with vpn's so deleting one would just spawn more. With the vpn's working to keep the bots from getting outright banned or white listed or how ever websites work. But his idea would be cooler. Just make the whole site a joke. Put knock knock jokes every other reports.
@@davidstaffen6783 sounds like a plan
@@theshambler6814 hay I'm just an idea man. I could write quite a few reports but I have no knowledge of how to make bot networks or how to hid there IP addresses.
Their*
Does Deactivison-bLizard 🦎 have a page for Diablo Immoral?
Sorry, got a gecko in my throat.
Does Activision-Blizzard have a report on them for Diablo Immortal?
This stupid and immoral website needs to be discredited and widely denounced.
And they most likely posted these messages themselves
They don't need to take that risk. Posting themselves removes their Section 230 protection, which is the only reason they can get away with this. There are always people willing to defame people or businesses online, there's no need to make posts themselves.
I don't agree. There are millions of real scammers out there so a few bad apples shouldnt discredit an epidemic of legit scammers.
Upper Echelon is my favourite investigative journalist!
Yelp is or was pretty much the same deal. Back when my dad opened up his business, they got several positive reviews and a couple negative reviews, but they wouldn't show the positive reviews unless we started a paid account with them. Thankfully we rely much more on word of mouth than we do on an online presence, but I know not all small businesses like ours have that luxury.
If you look up the report you will see it is dated June 14, 2022 barely over a week before this video was made. Oh and that $2,000? Here is what is what google coughs up putting in "ripoff reports $2000" in the search engine: "You can try *suing* the company behind Ripoff Report, Xcentric Ventures, LLC. However, to do so you will have to enter arbitration, which will cost you an initial fee of $2,000." The BBB's entry on the company is a mess with other sites and companies being listed without explaining how they are related to Ripoff Reports. According to Ktar FM Google and Facebook are pushing Review-specific sites into irrelevance. Yelp, which has its own set of issues is at 6.6% and Ktar FM doesn't even mention Ripoff Reports indicating it likely isn't even on the radar. Heck, one site claimed in Jan. 31, 2021 "Google removed this fraudulent website from the vast majority of US and international search engine results." Checking this myself it takes an effort to get the site to even pop up in the search results but then Google is supposed to tailor its results to your search history so who knows.
No one should lose safe harbor protections. That's a slippery slope. I'm sure what's happening there is illegal in many ways, just use those laws to put the guy away. Then replace the whole domain with a website that talks about what he did.
We will never remove any reports.
Unless you pay us.
Seems legit
Sweet so I can just write a hit piece and sue UA-camrs??
Wait a minute... So, Jeff Lerner isn't actually an Internet disease? If he was defamed, I would REALLY be interested in a video talking about that, what new information brought you to back down on him and take down the videos.
It's pronounced Tem-pee, as in, "thanks to all the homeless people, this town smells like pee."
It used to be a clean and nice city. What a shame.
Rip off report has always been something you've needed to verify for yourself. It is like the BBB or yelp where anyone can post a complaint. The issue I have had in the past is that some posts are extremely well researched and others are like Karens where it isn't a scam and the person posting the "rip off" report is at fault.
It is useful in the sense that if a lot of people are saying something similar. As well as verify from secondary sources.
LOL, what a mindless apologist. No way you can defend its attempt to extort others out of thousands of dollar just to "investigate"
Yelp is an extortion business in the same way, check Louis Rossmann's vidéo on it
@@My_Old_YT_Account correct. That is why I included them
This is beyond disgusting, on SOOOO many levels. The problem is that they come on top when you search, which makes normal people browsing then net believes them. As some believe that the top results are due to number of visitors to that site not the algorithm.
keep it up bro we support you and love the content
Not only do I not understand how the site justifies their wrong reports, but also why people invent things to come at their opponents.
I'm shocked the lawsuits haven't gone much of anywhere, safe harbor provisions or not for the defamation, this is a blatant extortion racket.
Not that I want to tell you how to gather information or handle past videos, but I'm genuinely curious. If the Lerner videos were accurate as you saw it when you made them, why does he get a pass because he helped out on this?
When I say the system needs a healthy reset, I also mean institutions and monopolies.
I wonder what 4chan would do if they found this site. I'm sure it wouldn't face any issues whatsoever
I haven't used ripoff report in eons, and totally forgot it even existed. But I feel awful because I would use it all the time back in the day to look up companies I was interested in working with.
Small business guy here, Yelp is the same thing. The only fair one seems to be google business so far
Gonna be honest, if I saw a link to a site with TRUSTED and VERIFIED in all caps in the link title, I'd never click it.
Worse web site on the internet?: Twitter
Lol i thought the same thing when he said that
What about Buzzfeed?
What about tiktok? The company that pays millions to china and the CCP to torture gays muslims and minorities. (Including but not limited to: organ harvesting)
@@Rabbitlord108 the only reason it isn’t up there is cause tons of us forgot B-Feed existed
@@Filcayra72 HA!
sounds like they are asking for a lawsuit
"That's a nice reputation you got there... it'd be a shame if something happened to it."
- Ripoff Report
Sounds like a website begging for libel/slander lawsuits against them. Hope they get taken to court enough to bankrupt them. I'm all for consumer advocacy and our voices being heard, but that is not the way to do it.
Someone really needs to hack this thing into oblivion. 😡
Repealing Section 230 is a good idea that would do more than put the Rip-Off Report out of business. It would also get rid of many of conspiracy theory websites as well.
Repealing Section 230 would just create an auto censorship hammer.
@@Maximara It would end the worst invention in my lifetime: social media.
@@bactanite Actually repealing Section 230 would make social media worse as it makes too much money and the work around stye would devise (can you say 'binding arbitration if you use this site', Neighbor? I knew you could. /s) would cause more problems. It's like that Data Stream song.
Surprised they haven't defamed anyone with the right skillset to find the guy Liam Neeson style
There's no way he believes he's actually helping the public. He's only sticking to that "well I'm helping people and the businesses deserve it" because if he explained it in any other way, he'd go to jail for extortion. Also probably why he speaks in the third person also.
What happens if you make a report about the website itself? Would it top the homepage on google search results? Because that would be hilarious.
It would get deleted instantly. I'm sure they have a system set up to flag anything about them or their employees.
I'm actually almost surprised Google hasn't blacklisted them for their level of SEO manipulation and their method of monetizing that specifically.
EDIT: Oh, that manipulation surrounding google execs is probably why not.
Keep this shit up! You are doing great work!
This is what happens when you start to hit close to the core of Evil. Keep going.
Unbelievable!! Thank you for providing this info about this heinous site and it's creator!
This is extortion with an extra step.
I wonder if he has a kiwi farms thread.
Not yet. Null has gotten requests for a thread on Edward, though.
I've never even heard of ripoff report before now LMAO
it's sad that places like that even exist.....
you should have written a complaint about Ripoff Report on their own site about themselves to see if they'd remove it, proving the truth/falseness of their claim to permanency
I wonder what would happen if someone filed a report against Ripoff Report?
Last time I heard of this site, a lady made a report about a shoddy early 2000s copy of Newegg called Kleargear... Kleargear sent her a letter basically threatening a defamation suit unless she removes her report. Which of course she couldn't afford neither option.
So it's a more egregious form of the UA-cam copyright strike claims process
I mean, it's in the name... Ripoff report. That's indeed a ripoff
Honestly, the fact that he spoke in Third-Person ALONE gave me red flags.
You gotta be a special kind of egotistical maniac to answer questions the way this guy does. Also, “I Love Search/Discovery” merch drop, when?
18:33 Because yes, there is nothing sketchy about a site praising a single dude.
Can we get Anonymous to utterly destroy the website…?
5 minutes in and I'm wondering when extortion became legal. Good info as usual
How it is that they can not be sued over defamation or something?
they have and they won because they are protected by section 230
@@toomanyaccounts hah, it is something like: you as a website owner are not taking responsibility of the content that is published on your website?
But doesn't section 230 blatantly point out that those who publish and edit are NOT part of the digital townsquare, therefore not protected?
Not meaning to sound stingy, but I have never sent you money. So how exactly did you rip me off?
he didn't rip me off too!!!!
@@adamhearts9195 Me neither.
What a surprise. A great video just uploaded!
Honestly that opening report sums up Patreon shills pretty well
Someone should put the Ripoff Report website on the Ripoff Report website. Is that even possible? (If it's not, it's a 230 violation right?)
Hey as someone who enjoys reading legal issues, and cases. None of this is a section 230 issue.
Moderation does not remove liability from third party.
Liability can be gained if they encourage or take part in the creation of the content. As then the creation of the content isn't then technically from a third party.
My manscape died on me. I bought the lawn mower 3.0, so buy at your own risk. Though I only had it for a short time though, I loved the product just incredibly sad it died so quick. (use 6 months)
It's not made for shrubbery removal.🤣
I had to before someone else did.
@@Mr.Unacceptable man I was drinking when I read this 🤣 thanks for the laugh homie.
Shit I've been using the 2.0 for like 3 years and mine is still balling out.